Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[Tassman]

You keep asserting that claim. Strangely enough you seem to be unable to back that claim up with anything substantive.

It is self-evident that one cannot have two complete natures (divine and human) in one person other than as a theological statement to assert a theological truth.

I would consider it not at all analogous with the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

It is precisely analogous with the example you gave, namely “if someone has all the properties that's necessary to be considered a human then that person is a human. Someone who has all the properties necessary to be considered to be both God and man would be a God-man”.

[carpedm9587]

Not believing in the resurrection of the body would be enough for the vast majority of every Christian that has ever lived to consider you a heretic.

Amazingly - that never actually happened

Well, consider yourself one imaginary quarter richer.

Would that they were real!

I don't know what beliefs your wife holds so I can't comment on that.

She's probably not a "real" Christian either

[JimL]

Amazingly - that never actually happened



Would that they were real!



She's probably not a "real" Christian either

Most christians from my experience know very little about the bible so aren't what I would call real christians either.

[carpedm9587]

Most christians from my experience know very little about the bible so aren't what I would call real christians either.

I don't get into the business of telling anyone who is and is not a real <insert belief system here>. It's not my concern. As for myself, depending on their definition of "Christian," I was a "real Christian" to some, and not to others. For example, if someone believes "once saved always saved," then I was either never a Christian, or I still am. Given my current beliefs, the latter is a hard case to make, so the former is more likely (to them). If "believing in the bodily resurrection" is necessary (as it apparently is for Chrawnus), then I never met that definition of an "actual Christian."

Getting into an extended discussion as to whether or not I was an "actual Christian" 30+ years ago doesn't seem to me to be a very good use of my time. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.

[JimL]

I don't get into the business of telling anyone who is and is not a real <insert belief system here>. It's not my concern. As for myself, depending on their definition of "Christian," I was a "real Christian" to some, and not to others. For example, if someone believes "once saved always saved," then I was either never a Christian, or I still am. Given my current beliefs, the latter is a hard case to make, so the former is more likely (to them). If "believing in the bodily resurrection" is necessary (as it apparently is for Chrawnus), then I never met that definition of an "actual Christian."

Getting into an extended discussion as to whether or not I was an "actual Christian" 30+ years ago doesn't seem to me to be a very good use of my time. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.

Agreed.

[Mountain Man]

Most christians from my experience know very little about the bible so aren't what I would call real christians either.

Considering your own vast ignorance of scripture, who are you to judge?

[One Bad Pig]

I don't get into the business of telling anyone who is and is not a real <insert belief system here>. It's not my concern. As for myself, depending on their definition of "Christian," I was a "real Christian" to some, and not to others. For example, if someone believes "once saved always saved," then I was either never a Christian, or I still am. Given my current beliefs, the latter is a hard case to make, so the former is more likely (to them). If "believing in the bodily resurrection" is necessary (as it apparently is for Chrawnus), then I never met that definition of an "actual Christian."

Getting into an extended discussion as to whether or not I was an "actual Christian" 30+ years ago doesn't seem to me to be a very good use of my time. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.

For a former Christian, you're pretty terrible at explaining actual Christian beliefs. Then again, belief in a bodily resurrection is pretty fundamental. If you never had that, I can't say I'm at all surprised at your having fallen away from whatever beliefs you did hold.

[JimL]

For a former Christian, you're pretty terrible at explaining actual Christian beliefs. Then again, belief in a bodily resurrection is pretty fundamental. If you never had that, I can't say I'm at all surprised at your having fallen away from whatever beliefs you did hold.

Well, to be specific, the belief is that of a "new body" resurrection, the old one comes from the earth and to the earth shall return, remember. Of course that was according to the more ancient Yahweh who said you wouldn't live forever, who threw you out of the garden so you couldn't eat the life sustaining fruit from the magic tree. So, according to the more modern version, can you explain where your immaterial soul will be hanging out prior to resurrection while awaiting its new body, and will you still need to eat of the magic fruit a la Yaweh?

[carpedm9587]

For a former Christian, you're pretty terrible at explaining actual Christian beliefs.

Depends on which ones you're talking about. But I don't claim to be an expert at explaining Christian beliefs - too many years have passed for that to be the case.

Then again, belief in a bodily resurrection is pretty fundamental. If you never had that, I can't say I'm at all surprised at your having fallen away from whatever beliefs you did hold.

I can't say that I'm surprised that you're not surprised.