# Religions



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 29, 2014)

One of Bullets post got me to thinking, I was thinking about a context within the bible that is present but yet not often considered. The foundation of my mindset for those who don't know my beliefs is that I believe in the basic underlying context found within the scriptures but believe it to be embellished, much written  by someone other than the person ascribed to. etc. But I do however believe the simple message, LOL, handpicked by myself. LOL, Laughing at myself because I realize what you guys are thinking. Anyway, not pushing my own version but rather throwing out  a few thoughts for discussion.  Here is the post;

Another perfect example of how man makes excuses for a non-existent God AND why there is so much disagreement within the religion.
__________________end quote. I was thinking how this was probably the attitude in Jesus's day. That some saw God as non existant. Others thought they had him figured out. That many versions existed, singular and plural, one God and many gods. The crowd mostly mentioned in the scriptures being the ''puffed up" religious crowd who thought they displayed godleness, whom Jesus called white washed tombs. Point is that all claim to know God. Jesus basically said that all misrepresented God, and that he knew God. I have wondered how this message would be accepted in this day? While the world seeks to know God, prove or disprove God. Jesus claimed he knew God. Funny how the message of today has changed from Jesus's own message, about the Kingdom of God... this definition itself debated


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> One of Bullets post got me to thinking, I was thinking about a context within the bible that is present but yet not often considered. The foundation of my mindset for those who don't know my beliefs is that I believe in the basic underlying context found within the scriptures but believe it to be embellished, much written  by someone other than the person ascribed to. etc. But I do however believe the simple message, LOL, handpicked by myself. LOL, Laughing at myself because I realize what you guys are thinking. Anyway, not pushing my own version but rather throwing out  a few thoughts for discussion.  Here is the post;
> 
> Another perfect example of how man makes excuses for a non-existent God AND why there is so much disagreement within the religion.
> __________________end quote. I was thinking how this was probably the attitude in Jesus's day. That some saw God as non existant. Others thought they had him figured out. That many versions existed, singular and plural, one God and many gods. The crowd mostly mentioned in the scriptures being the ''puffed up" religious crowd who thought they displayed godleness, whom Jesus called white washed tombs. Point is that all claim to know God. Jesus basically said that all misrepresented God, and that he knew God. I have wondered how this message would be accepted in this day? While the world seeks to know God, prove or disprove God. Jesus claimed he knew God. Funny how the message of today has changed from Jesus's own message, about the Kingdom of God... this definition itself debated





> Point is that all claim to know God. Jesus basically said that all misrepresented God, and that he knew God.


I think this statement in a roundabout way reflects what I believe - that RELIGION including the Bible is a misrepresentation of "God". I even believe Jesus probably existed (as a man). So for me to believe in God (the Christian one) I need something besides religion and the Bible to make that happen. Which doesn't exist as far as I know. But Im all ears if someone else does.


> Others thought they had him figured out.





> being the ''puffed up" religious crowd who thought they displayed godleness,


Funny how some things never change (and no im not making a blanket statement)


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 29, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> The crowd mostly mentioned in the scriptures being the ''puffed up" religious crowd who thought they displayed godleness, whom Jesus called white washed tombs.



^^^^funny how those types are not presented well in the Bible, yet so many future generations of Christians try very hard to be those types.   Grace is not the preferred theme, it seems.

Not all Christians fall in that category.  The contemporary movement is definitely skewed towards a message of Grace, but they often get lost in their rebellion against tradition and create their own "religion"......and behind closed doors, many are still "those types," but that doesn't play well in the market. 

But, if I'm not careful, I can become that type myself once I believe I have it all figured out and the rest of my fellow Christians have it wrong......


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2014)

I think religion is man's best attempts at trying to put an understanding to the unknowable. I truly believe this because since the times of these writings we have not figured out everything but we know so much that contradicts and proves the thoughts of the time false.

"God" didn't need mans help in any other way so why would God rely on man to write His story.......and would a God be pleased with such a job as what is included in the Bible? I just cannot get myself to think any of it is God like. 
Unquestionable perfection would seem to be the only standards by which a God would perform, create, expect and be satisfied with, yet literally the entire Universe and all of it's contents are everything but...AND the diversity of His followers and their varying beliefs raises serious doubts about anyone that claims to know this God and his thoughts and ways any better than the next person.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2014)

Let me also state that I tried to get to know God and I am more confused now than ever. Every time I got where it started making sense I realized that it was because it was exactly what I wanted or needed to hear and I made it that way in order to work for me.


----------



## Denton (Jan 29, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> But I do however believe the simple message, LOL, handpicked by myself. LOL, Laughing at myself because I realize what you guys are thinking.



Not laughing but applauding your self-awareness.  It seems to fit you and you're not attacking anyone with it so it sounds like its the best religion for you! I wish more people were like you.  



1gr8bldr said:


> Point is that all claim to know God. Jesus basically said that all misrepresented God, and that he knew God. I have wondered how this message would be accepted in this day? While the world seeks to know God, prove or disprove God. Jesus claimed he knew God. Funny how the message of today has changed from Jesus's own message, about the Kingdom of God... this definition itself debated



This is new to me.  Passages that describe this would make a great argument that Jesus brought consistency across the myriad of personal beliefs, that everyone else was wrong.  Even more far-reaching, these passages would support the Catholic Church, as the direct descendant of Paul, to be the only true path to knowing god rather than all of the "personal relationships" many contemporary christians profess.  Are they personal relationships with god or personal understandings of god? Were "personal relationships with god" what Jesus was arguing against?

Or it could just mean that all of christianity (based on Jesus's teachings) is the one true way to know god, and not any other line of thinking.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 29, 2014)

Denton said:


> This is new to me.  Passages that describe this would make a great argument that Jesus brought consistency across the myriad of personal beliefs, that everyone else was wrong.  Even more far-reaching, these passages would support the Catholic Church, as the direct descendant of Paul, to be the only true path to knowing god rather than all of the "personal relationships" many contemporary christians profess.  Are they personal relationships with god or personal understandings of god? Were "personal relationships with god" what Jesus was arguing against?
> 
> Or it could just mean that all of christianity (based on Jesus's teachings) is the one true way to know god, and not any other line of thinking.



I'm beginning to think it is the latter. Jesus it the way, truth, and the life. It would be the Good news vs everything else. Other religions and even forms of Christianity that add other ways.


----------



## Cullen Bohannon (Jan 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Let me also state that I tried to get to know God and I am more confused now than ever. Every time I got where it started making sense I realized that it was because it was exactly what I wanted or needed to hear and I made it that way in order to work for me.



I can completely relate.  And it most certainly is human nature to "see" exactly what we are looking for.  I observe that fact every single day, in very many ways (not just about higher powers).

I don't believe one single human being has ever _known_ anything about a higher power.  But we all _believe_ one way or the other.  And the two words are not synonymous at all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> One of Bullets post got me to thinking, I was thinking about a context within the bible that is present but yet not often considered. The foundation of my mindset for those who don't know my beliefs is that I believe in the basic underlying context found within the scriptures but believe it to be embellished, much written  by someone other than the person ascribed to. etc. But I do however believe the simple message, LOL, handpicked by myself. LOL, Laughing at myself because I realize what you guys are thinking. Anyway, not pushing my own version but rather throwing out  a few thoughts for discussion.  Here is the post;
> 
> Another perfect example of how man makes excuses for a non-existent God AND why there is so much disagreement within the religion.
> __________________end quote. I was thinking how this was probably the attitude in Jesus's day. That some saw God as non existant. Others thought they had him figured out. That many versions existed, singular and plural, one God and many gods. The crowd mostly mentioned in the scriptures being the ''puffed up" religious crowd who thought they displayed godleness, whom Jesus called white washed tombs. Point is that all claim to know God. Jesus basically said that all misrepresented God, and that he knew God. I have wondered how this message would be accepted in this day? While the world seeks to know God, prove or disprove God. Jesus claimed he knew God. Funny how the message of today has changed from Jesus's own message, about the Kingdom of God... this definition itself debated



I seem to recall from a previous thread you don't believe Christ was God incarnate.  Correct me if I am wrong.  If that is the case, who do you think Jesus is and what significance does he have, if any, in your view?  Oh and one more if I may.  What is the central message of scripture in general and the New Testament more specifically?

Thanks


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I seem to recall from a previous thread you don't believe Christ was God incarnate.  Correct me if I am wrong.  If that is the case, who do you think Jesus is and what significance does he have, if any, in your view?  Oh and one more if I may.  What is the central message of scripture in general and the New Testament more specifically?
> 
> Thanks


Just checking in as I was on the way out to another cold work day. I will give you a complete answer this evening


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Just checking in as I was on the way out to another cold work day. I will give you a complete answer this evening



Sounds good.  Watch the ice.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I seem to recall from a previous thread you don't believe Christ was God incarnate.  Correct me if I am wrong.  If that is the case, who do you think Jesus is and what significance does he have, if any, in your view?  Oh and one more if I may.  What is the central message of scripture in general and the New Testament more specifically?
> 
> Thanks


My view is that Jesus is that one prophesied from the OT as the annointed one. Meaning that he is a man annointed by God. That he is the first to experience the New Covenant, the firstborn among many brothers. Son of God at his baptism when the Dove came down. That he has regained all that which Adam lost. That God has given him all authority and gave him a name above all others. Jesus is now second only to God. Some call my belief a "low Christology". I consider second to God quite a high Christology. The central message is the new covenant. That man should have observed that even after a couple thousand years of trying to remoldel the old man, doing the work yourself, that no real change was accomplished. The new covenant, we rest from our work after having tore down our work, and allow God to be builder, him doing his work in us. The former was the kingdom of man, the new covenant being the kingdom of God.


----------



## Denton (Jan 30, 2014)

Interesting view.  With Jesus firmly grounded as a man, an annointed man but still a man, what are your feelings on the miracles he performed? 

Back to the original question, I always get a kick out of the row of supposed prophets in the Life of Brian, each professing to be the messiah or something.  Your description of the puffed up religious crowd reminded me of that yet out of that chaos came Jesus.  

What would the response be to another Jesus today? Probably nothing, or at the least an ATF raid on his compound.  Certainly skepticism from all sides, the religious and the not.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 30, 2014)

Denton said:


> Interesting view.  With Jesus firmly grounded as a man, an annointed man but still a man, what are your feelings on the miracles he performed?
> 
> Back to the original question, I always get a kick out of the row of supposed prophets in the Life of Brian, each professing to be the messiah or something.  Your description of the puffed up religious crowd reminded me of that yet out of that chaos came Jesus.
> 
> What would the response be to another Jesus today? Probably nothing, or at the least an ATF raid on his compound.  Certainly skepticism from all sides, the religious and the not.


I have to say I'm on a slippery slope because I don't know what miracles to believe. For example, I don't think he put back on a mans ear after Peter cut it off. For one, it was not a Roman army that took Jesus back to the Jewish religious leaders. Rome was not interested in their religious disputes. Second, Peter would have been arrested and third, most of those seeing it would have converted on the spot rather than beat and mock him. But, I do believe he performed miracles. Reason being that miracles were the sign that he was sent by God. Just like Moses. Jesus was called the "prophet likened to Moses". This would be the sign that he was commisioned by God to lead them. He once said something like "if you don't believe what I say, at least believe on the evidence of the signs", or something like that. I could quickly find it. So, what miracles he performed, I'm not sure.


----------



## Denton (Jan 30, 2014)

Bold move.  I applaud your slippery slope position though SemperFiDawg would not approve.   Rationality will strengthen your beliefs, whatever they may ultimately become!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 30, 2014)

I would add that Jesus only performed miracles through the power of his Father. He admitted to that fact.


----------



## Denton (Jan 30, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would add that Jesus only performed miracles through the power of his Father. He admitted to that fact.



Art what are your thoughts on the jesus as man, god, or man/god question?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have to say I'm on a slippery slope because I don't know what miracles to believe. For example, I don't think he put back on a mans ear after Peter cut it off. For one, it was not a Roman army that took Jesus back to the Jewish religious leaders. Rome was not interested in their religious disputes. Second, Peter would have been arrested and third, most of those seeing it would have converted on the spot rather than beat and mock him. But, I do believe he performed miracles. Reason being that miracles were the sign that he was sent by God. Just like Moses. Jesus was called the "prophet likened to Moses". This would be the sign that he was commisioned by God to lead them. He once said something like "if you don't believe what I say, at least believe on the evidence of the signs", or something like that. I could quickly find it. So, what miracles he performed, I'm not sure.


I have an honest question for you. The foundation of my Agnosticism is that I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is entirely man made/not inspired by God if he exists.
So you have given a couple of examples of things you don't think are true and some examples that you do think are true. So if all the information you have to make those determinations is based on the Bible, which have some things that you don't think are true, how do you come to conclusion that some things are true? Normally we could check other sources but in this case all the other sources are based on the Bible. 
Or is that the slippery slope?
And also thanks for your honesty.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 31, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> One of Bullets post got me to thinking, I was thinking about a context within the bible that is present but yet not often considered. The foundation of my mindset for those who don't know my beliefs is that I believe in the basic underlying context found within the scriptures but believe it to be embellished, much written  by someone other than the person ascribed to. etc. But I do however believe the simple message, LOL, handpicked by myself. LOL, Laughing at myself because I realize what you guys are thinking. Anyway, not pushing my own version but rather throwing out  a few thoughts for discussion.  Here is the post;
> 
> Another perfect example of how man makes excuses for a non-existent God AND why there is so much disagreement within the religion.
> __________________end quote. I was thinking how this was probably the attitude in Jesus's day. That some saw God as non existant. Others thought they had him figured out. That many versions existed, singular and plural, one God and many gods. The crowd mostly mentioned in the scriptures being the ''puffed up" religious crowd who thought they displayed godleness, whom Jesus called white washed tombs. Point is that all claim to know God. Jesus basically said that all misrepresented God, and that he knew God. I have wondered how this message would be accepted in this day? While the world seeks to know God, prove or disprove God. Jesus claimed he knew God. Funny how the message of today has changed from Jesus's own message, about the Kingdom of God... this definition itself debated




It is not accepted totally by many today, and for some not accepted at all.

Many people think with their wallets in our generation, because they got plenty to put in it compared to previous generations, and call it reason. Some people are generally still rebellious to the spiritual big picture Jesus proclaimed, even if they claim to be to Him. 

Denial of the spiritual nature of man is perhaps not the greatest rebellion of our times. It is perhaps a reaction to the hypocrisy of those Christians who are quite willing, for a price, to spin inequities in all our lives. This generation's unprecedented opportunities to broadcast spin, and people's willingness to go along with it if it serves their immediate needs, even at the expense of an other, is perhaps the greatest rebellion of our times.

When we compare the spiritual conflicts of the ancients, in many ways ours are no different and it is quite disconcerting to see many who claim salvation and\or redemption and they wallow in rebellion.

And that's what we are, myself included, rebellious lords, each a sovereign to himself/herself. And when one of us wisen's up, and attempts to curb our rebelious natures, the rest of us join in collective protest under the banners and draggons of the rebels, winners and ego maniacs we are.

Oh and "Good morning bros".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I have an honest question for you. The foundation of my Agnosticism is that I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is entirely man made/not inspired by God if he exists.
> So you have given a couple of examples of things you don't think are true and some examples that you do think are true. So if all the information you have to make those determinations is based on the Bible, which have some things that you don't think are true, how do you come to conclusion that some things are true? Normally we could check other sources but in this case all the other sources are based on the Bible.
> Or is that the slippery slope?
> And also thanks for your honesty.


 My take on the bible is very different. Matthew was not written by Matthew. Luke plagerized most of Mark. John's gospel was likely written by someone else and what we do have is a patch work of different writings pieced together. So how do you decide what to believe? I believe that several generations passed with biblical stories being passed about orally. Someone then decides to record these stories for future generations. Or... maybe someone realized that the stories were getting embellished and figured we had better write this down before it gets any worse. So I see men of faith wanting to preserve that which they understood to be truth. I look to the basics, not the details. The basic idea found is that a man named Jesus was handed over to the Romans, accused of leading a revolt. They handed him over this way because he insulted them be implying with his teaching that they had much to learn, that they misrepresented the God they claimed to know. The story goes on that God was pleased with him and raised him from the dead. He regained all that Adam lost when he was cast from heaven. I have to admit that picking and choosing what to believe and what not is a slippery slope. But my view deals with the errors and contridictions rather than deny they exist. I suppose that I have not answered your question since I can't prove that which I choose to believe, but maybe you will see it as an interesting viewpoint


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> My take on the bible is very different. Matthew was not written by Matthew. Luke plagerized most of Mark. John's gospel was likely written by someone else and what we do have is a patch work of different writings pieced together. So how do you decide what to believe? I believe that several generations passed with biblical stories being passed about orally. Someone then decides to record these stories for future generations. Or... maybe someone realized that the stories were getting embellished and figured we had better write this down before it gets any worse. So I see men of faith wanting to preserve that which they understood to be truth. I look to the basics, not the details. The basic idea found is that a man named Jesus was handed over to the Romans, accused of leading a revolt. They handed him over this way because he insulted them be implying with his teaching that they had much to learn, that they misrepresented the God they claimed to know. The story goes on that God was pleased with him and raised him from the dead. He regained all that Adam lost when he was cast from heaven. I have to admit that picking and choosing what to believe and what not is a slippery slope. But my view deals with the errors and contridictions rather than deny they exist. I suppose that I have not answered your question since I can't prove that which I choose to believe, but maybe you will see it as an interesting viewpoint



Very,very interesting.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> My take on the bible is very different. Matthew was not written by Matthew. Luke plagerized most of Mark. John's gospel was likely written by someone else and what we do have is a patch work of different writings pieced together. So how do you decide what to believe? I believe that several generations passed with biblical stories being passed about orally. Someone then decides to record these stories for future generations. Or... maybe someone realized that the stories were getting embellished and figured we had better write this down before it gets any worse. So I see men of faith wanting to preserve that which they understood to be truth. I look to the basics, not the details. The basic idea found is that a man named Jesus was handed over to the Romans, accused of leading a revolt. They handed him over this way because he insulted them be implying with his teaching that they had much to learn, that they misrepresented the God they claimed to know. The story goes on that God was pleased with him and raised him from the dead. He regained all that Adam lost when he was cast from heaven. I have to admit that picking and choosing what to believe and what not is a slippery slope. But my view deals with the errors and contridictions rather than deny they exist. I suppose that I have not answered your question since I can't prove that which I choose to believe, but maybe you will see it as an interesting viewpoint


Thanks, I do find it an interesting viewpoint. And actually I view much of what you said the same way.
I think where we differ is all of this -


> Matthew was not written by Matthew. Luke plagerized most of Mark. John's gospel was likely written by someone else and what we do have is a patch work of different writings pieced together. So how do you decide what to believe? I believe that several generations passed with biblical stories being passed about orally. Someone then decides to record these stories for future generations. Or... maybe someone realized that the stories were getting embellished and figured we had better write this down before it gets any worse. So I see men of faith wanting to preserve that which they understood to be truth.


Leads me to believe that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. And since the Bible is all we have therefore I question the existence of God.
On the other hand, you see those same things but do believe there is a God. So I guess my question was intended to see if maybe I was throwing out the baby with the bath water.


> I suppose that I have not answered your question since I can't prove that which I choose to believe


Wasn't really expecting you to prove it because I think basically that would be impossible. I was more interested in your thought process.
And thanks.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Very,very interesting.


I agree. I think this type of conversation gets to the "meat and potatoes" of how some people believe and some people don't without there being any wrong or right. Faith. Which I think boils down to what your brain/thought process will accept or reject.


----------



## Denton (Jan 31, 2014)

You won't find any enemies here for that viewpoint.  It's open minded and you've obviously put a lot of thought into it.   You're right, you do deal with the human element in your own way, like a balance between agnostic and christian.  

Cheers!


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 31, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> The story goes on that God was pleased with him and raised him from the dead. He regained all that Adam lost when he was cast from heaven. I have to admit that picking and choosing what to believe and what not is a slippery slope.



How slippery are your beliefs regarding the highlighted part?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> How slippery are your beliefs regarding the highlighted part?


Not sure I follow your question. I can say that where many Christians celebrate the blood of Jesus, I celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 1, 2014)

Denton said:


> Art what are your thoughts on the jesus as man, god, or man/god question?



First and foremost I don't believe Jesus is God. He is the Son of God. The confusing part of Christianity is that we can only worship one God. Suddenly Jesus shows up and now we are confused, what shall we do? Lets just say he is God, same as the Father but the equal physical part of God.
I certainly don't have the correct answer but I do know that Jesus isn't his Father. I don't care if every Christian in the whole world believes Jesus is the physical persona of his Father, I don't see it that way.
1gr8bldr has held this belief longer than me and is certainly better at explaining it than me. We might be the only two mainstream Christians in Georgia that believe this, excluding JW's who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel. 
I differ somewhat in believing Jesus is somehow deity being the actual genetic son of God. 
Beyond that I can't explain it any better than Trinitarians but it still makes more sense that their views. Oneness beliefs make more sense than  the Trinitarian belief. 
As I delve into the aspects of the Word always being with God but not being just Jesus, I could develop a belief that Jesus first appeared as a being when born from Mary. Jesus was the Word brought to life. This could mean the foretold concept of God's message or Word of the Messiah. Jesus was the Word in that respect. Jesus was the Word brought into the world as God foretold. As such he was definitely the "Word."
I don't believe it is necessary for salvation to understand every aspect of God as in what is his will or power. I don't believe it is necessary to explain every aspect of who Jesus is to know that he died for our sins. If you believe Jesus died for your sins as revealed in the Bible, why does it matter what else he is as for as ones salvation is concerned? The Bible is very clear that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected by his Father. His resurrection is just as important as his death. Beyond that Biblically revealed information of salvation, we start to speculate or add to the truth. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. Jesus taught the Kingdom of his Father. Everything he did was through his Father. He always gave credit to his Father for everything he did concerning miracles and healing. Only his Father knew of when he would return.
Modern Christians try to make Jesus the worship source because he is the sacrifice.  We can't deny that he is nor can we diminish his mission. We can only follow what Jesus himself preached. He preached the Kingdom of God. He prayed to God and He worshiped God. 
I believe Jesus would feel guilty if he felt we were worshiping him instead of his Father.
Is all of this picture perfect? No it isn't. Again, we can only rely on what the scripture reveals.

Now getting to the scripture. It has flaws, misinterpretations, and flaws. Yet it is the only written Word we have. The written Word in not the only Word. The basic concept within the written word is true. The written word is influenced by man. Inspired by God yes, written by God no. That's why the law is written on our hearts. The Bible is just a part of God's word. Jesus being the revealed part of God's word. Jesus being the foretold salvation part of God's Word. The Good News part of the Word is Jesus. The Gospel message is Jesus. Jesus was sent by his Father. Salvation is by God's grace.
No matter how we believe as Christians, it's all about and from God. Jesus is just the messenger and mediator. 
Jesus knows this and personally told us this.
I don't understand why others are blinded to this truth. Perhaps it is their indoctrination. They are blind and their eyes can't see.
Amen to God for delivering his son as a sacrifice for our sins. God is great. God is good.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 1, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> How slippery are your beliefs regarding the highlighted part?



"and raised him from the dead"

Not slippery at all. God raised Jesus from the dead.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> "and raised him from the dead"
> 
> Not slippery at all. God raised Jesus from the dead.



Is Resurrection unique to God and Jesus?


----------



## Denton (Feb 1, 2014)

Thank you Art for the answer.  I chuckled at the thought of Jesus being embarrassed by all the worship directed his way.  That just sounds like something Jesus would do.  

And I've heard some fantastic sermons on Easter regarding the necessity of the resurrection in the story of Jesus as more than just a man.  Before the resurrection he was still seen as only a messenger, not as the Son.  It was the resurrection that gave his message the weight of God behind it.  So whatever Christians think about his other miracles, the Resurrection is a must believe or else they deny Jesus's connection to God.  



bullethead said:


> Is Resurrection unique to God and Jesus?



It is not unique at all.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

Denton said:


> It is not unique at all.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection



Exactly. While not common, people coming back from the dead in those days seemed to be happening in more than few instances in the Bible before Jesus, it happened a few times after Jesus, and in many other religions resurrections are talked about and "occurred".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 1, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Is Resurrection unique to God and Jesus?


It may be unique in that he does not die a second death. Maybe some other story that I can't think off.... Yea, probably several


----------

