Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[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.

[firstfloor]

The Trinity is one of the most versatile gods known to man and just about any stunt is easy for Him.

[tabibito]

Me: So - If Jesus was wholly man and wholly God, it seems that he would be radically different from any of his brothers.
Lecturer (Doctorate in Theology): That is correct.
Me: In that case, I'll have to black out Heb 2:17 from my copy of the Bible

[JonathanL]

The Trinity is one of the most versatile gods known to man and just about any stunt is easy for Him.

Even if you intended this as mockery by using the words "versatile" and "stunt" you speak more truthfully than you realize here, with the correction that it should be " the most powerful God known to man", and not "one of the most versatile gods known to man".

But yes, there's not much, if anything, that is hard for God to accomplish.

[Same Hakeem]

Does this make sense?

https://carm.org/jesus-raise-himself

I agree on the above statement that " we must agree upon the nature of Jesus" therefore, to solve this matter entirely is to go to Revelation 3:21. In Revelation 3:21, Jesus said "I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne" ;therefore, either (i) "God" Jesus sat with God the Father on his throne in Rev 3:21 and then there is more than one God or (ii) Jesus is not God. Since God is only one in 1 Corinthians 8:4, Jesus cannot be God and sat with God the Father on his throne in Revelation 3:21; otherwise, there is more than one God, which is against the Bible in 1 Corinthians 8:4 that God is only one.

[Same Hakeem]

It depends on what one means by "100% God and 100% human". I take it to mean that Jesus has 100% of the qualities necessary to be God, and 100% of the qualities necessary to be human.

But this statement is impossible; according to Christianity Jesus died if it was Jesus the God that died on the cross, then we have an impossibility because God cannot die and it was Jesus the man that died, then his death makes no sense to save us because God commanded "every man is to die for his own sin" in 2 Kings 14:6.

[JimL]

Me: So - If Jesus was wholly man and wholly God, it seems that he would be radically different from any of his brothers.
Lecturer (Doctorate in Theology): That is correct.
Me: In that case, I'll have to black out Heb 2:17 from my copy of the Bible

Well, you can't take the bible literally.

[Rushing Jaws]

Hence Jesus is simultaneously 'fully God' and 'fully Man', i.e. a logical contradiction.

[JimL]

Was Jesus subject to time?

[Tassman]

Was Jesus subject to time?

[NorrinRadd]

Speaking as one who --

-- has no formal training in "theology" or "apologetics"

-- has taken a total of two or maybe three philosophy classes, back in the early '80s

-- has never in my nearly 40 years as a believer been part of a church that holds "creeds" and "confessions" in high regard...


Discussions like this seem pointless and almost silly. There are certain things that Scripture says pretty clearly. Some of these are hard to reconcile at face value. Attempts to explain or reconcile them involve going beyond what Scripture actually says, and introducing a lot of speculation and magical theologisms like "hypostatic union." And to me, the worst part is that certain of these explanations are taken as uniquely authoritative orthodoxy, on par with the direct words of Scripture itself.

[One Bad Pig]

Speaking as one who --

-- has no formal training in "theology" or "apologetics"

-- has taken a total of two or maybe three philosophy classes, back in the early '80s

-- has never in my nearly 40 years as a believer been part of a church that holds "creeds" and "confessions" in high regard...


Discussions like this seem pointless and almost silly. There are certain things that Scripture says pretty clearly. Some of these are hard to reconcile at face value. Attempts to explain or reconcile them involve going beyond what Scripture actually says, and introducing a lot of speculation and magical theologisms like "hypostatic union."

It sounds like you haven't seriously attempted to wrestle with these issues, haven't bothered to attempt to understand other's efforts, and are content to overlook apparent contradictions. Forgive me if I don't find that outlook particularly convincing.

And to me, the worst part is that certain of these explanations are taken as uniquely authoritative orthodoxy, on par with the direct words of Scripture itself.

The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures is fully capable of continuing inspiration in the church, yes?