Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary thread - Hakeem vs. Boxing Pythagoras - did Jesus die on the cross?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    Forgive my haughtiness, but it seems Hakeem's arguments suffered a slow, lingering death.
    They weren't very satisfactory, were they?
    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
      They weren't very satisfactory, were they?
      He just kept ignoring BP and repeating himself. And coming up with the lamest excuses ever (like his last one: the cross was outside of Jerusalem)

      Basically he just calls Jesus a liar, because Jesus said he was going to die and be resurrected. So either he was a false prophet, or Hakeem (and Islam) is wrong.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
        Forgive my haughtiness, but it seems Hakeem's arguments suffered a slow, lingering death.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
          Out of curiosity, since you believe that Jesus is God, how could it be that Jesus is separated from God? I could understand it better if you said that he was separated from the Father in some mysterious way... sort of... although they're supposedly both God.
          Ah. That is an excellent question.

          This is where Jesus having two natures comes in. He is one person. God the Father is another person. So as a person (who is both man and God) He was forsaken by God the Father on the cross. That separation was being forsaken on the account of taking on our sins upon Himself. ". . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- Mark 15:34. [2 Corinthians 5:21.]

          ". . . But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear. . . . " -- Isaiah 59:2. [Now God who is omnipresent cannot not be present everywhere, so the forsaking is the separation.]

          Even more interesting, He as God died on the cross. And God never died. Here we have it. His soul died on the cross, shedding His blood. ". . . because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ." -- Isaiah 53:12. And as I personally understand this, the death of His soul took place while He was humanly conscious. And was completed (John 19:28) before His fellowship was restored with God the Father before He as a human physically dead by His own volition [John 10:18] ". . . Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the spirit." -- Luke 23:46. Note, it says He gave up the spirit. [Note: God the Father didn't die, His Son did, And they are all co-equal as God, even the Holy Spirit had a role in this, Hebrews 9:14]

          This makes me think of Schrödinger's Cat, even though it is not even related. Other genuine Christians may disagree on the interpretation of John 19:28, 30 and details, but I gave you my understanding of this. (I learned this interpretation [John 19:28, 30] from the teachings of C. S. Lovett M.A., B.D., D.D. many years ago.)

          http://www.cslovettbooks.com/April-2015.html<<< this page is temporary for this year.
          Last edited by 37818; 04-13-2015, 09:41 PM.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Ah. That is an excellent question.

            This is where Jesus having two natures comes in. He is one person. God the Father is another person. So as a person (who is both man and God) He was forsaken by God the Father on the cross. That separation was being forsaken on the account of taking on our sins upon Himself. ". . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- Mark 15:34. [2 Corinthians 5:21.]

            ". . . But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear. . . . " -- Isaiah 59:2. [Now God who is omnipresent cannot not be present everywhere, so the forsaking is the separation.]

            Even more interesting, He as God died on the cross. And God never died. Here we have it. His soul died on the cross, shedding His blood. ". . . because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ." -- Isaiah 53:12. And as I personally understand this, the death of His soul took place while He was humanly conscious. And was completed (John 19:28) before His fellowship was restored with God the Father before He as a human physically dead by His own volition [John 10:18] ". . . Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the spirit." -- Luke 23:46. Note, it says He gave up the spirit. [Note: God the Father didn't die, His Son did, And they are all co-equal as God, even the Holy Spirit had a role in this, Hebrews 9:14]

            This makes me think of Schrödinger's Cat, even though it is not even related. Other genuine Christians may disagree on the interpretation of John 19:28, 30 and details, but I gave you my understanding of this. (I learned this interpretation [John 19:28, 30] from the teachings of C. S. Lovett M.A., B.D., D.D. many years ago.)
            Yes, well, it makes a heckuva lot more sense to me if I don't assume that Jesus is God. But if you can reconcile all that in your own mind, more power to you. I'm not about to argue against it.
            Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
              Yes, well, it makes a heckuva lot more sense to me if I don't assume that Jesus is God. But if you can reconcile all that in your own mind, more power to you. I'm not about to argue against it.
              That is fine. Jesus is a man. All men are sinful before God. "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." -- Ecclesiastes 7:20. So when He was addressed as "good teacher" He says to that young rich man, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." -- Mark 10:18.

              You see, unless this man Jesus was also God, being the Son of God, He would be a sinner being a man. [John 5:18. John 8:24. 1 John 3:5. 2 John 9.]
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #52
                Crucifixion. The Baha'i view

                Since we had some discussions on the debate forum here about the crucifixion I decided to share an excerpt from a larger book which cites Abdul-Baha interpreting Surih 4 and verse 156 of the Quran, this may not be well known to many Baha'is. It is an excerpt from Star of the West:

                The verse to which the author refers is 4:156 and reads as follows:


                "And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God'. Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness... No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself."

                'Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation of the verse is provided in a Tablet published in Star of the West, vol. 2, no. 7, p. 13, in which He has written:

                "In regard to the verse, which is revealed in the Koran, that His Highness, Christ, was not killed and was not crucified, by this is meant the Reality of Christ. Although they crucified this elemental body, yet the merciful reality and the heavenly existence remain eternal and undying, and it was protected from the oppression and persecution of the enemies, for Christ is eternal and Everlasting. How can He die? This death and crucifixion was imposed on the physical body of Christ, and not upon the Spirit of Christ"
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #53
                  ...and yet Jesus proved he was in a resurrected body by eating, drinking, and making at least one of the apostles touch his wounds.
                  Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Crucifixion. The Baha'i view

                    Since we had some discussions on the debate forum here about the crucifixion I decided to share an excerpt from a larger book which cites Abdul-Baha interpreting Surih 4 and verse 156 of the Quran, this may not be well known to many Baha'is. It is an excerpt from Star of the West:

                    The verse to which the author refers is 4:156 and reads as follows:


                    "And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God'. Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness... No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself."

                    'Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation of the verse is provided in a Tablet published in Star of the West, vol. 2, no. 7, p. 13, in which He has written:

                    "In regard to the verse, which is revealed in the Koran, that His Highness, Christ, was not killed and was not crucified, by this is meant the Reality of Christ. Although they crucified this elemental body, yet the merciful reality and the heavenly existence remain eternal and undying, and it was protected from the oppression and persecution of the enemies, for Christ is eternal and Everlasting. How can He die? This death and crucifixion was imposed on the physical body of Christ, and not upon the Spirit of Christ"
                    tumblr_ltlorwUSSl1qfqcmfo1_400.gif

                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Hi all,

                      As I will be trying to respond to your comments and your queries, please feel free to ask.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Desert Berean saying "Jesus proved he was in a resurrected body by eating, drinking, and making at least one of the apostles touch his wounds" is not true unless proven in line with the conditions of the resurrected body in the Bible. For example, had Jesus been dead and resurrected, the disciples on the way to Emmaus should have recognised Jesus easily as they were walking, talking and eating with Jesus because the resurrected will be in glory as per 1 Corinthians 15:43 that will shine like the sun as Matthew 13:43 says "the righteous shall shine like the sun in their Father kingdom"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Hakeem View Post
                          Desert Berean saying "Jesus proved he was in a resurrected body by eating, drinking, and making at least one of the apostles touch his wounds" is not true unless proven in line with the conditions of the resurrected body in the Bible. For example, had Jesus been dead and resurrected, the disciples on the way to Emmaus should have recognised Jesus easily as they were walking, talking and eating with Jesus because the resurrected will be in glory as per 1 Corinthians 15:43 that will shine like the sun as Matthew 13:43 says "the righteous shall shine like the sun in their Father kingdom"
                          The hostile crowds in Nazareth should have been able to throw Jesus over a cliff, too, but Jesus was able to walk away. Maybe they forgot what he looked like? Also, your conundrum fails if Jesus wasn't speaking literally in Mt. 13:43.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Mossrose writing " The executioners had crucified thousands of people by the time of Jesus' death. They certainly weren't too stupid to not recognize a dead person when they saw one, and that is without the medical knowledge we boast of now" is refuted by the fact that after all trial Jesus received by the Roman Soldiers who were experts in killing, Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus died according to Mark 15:44 because according to Christian Commentaries at biblehub.com on Mark 15:44 that is common for the victim of crucifixion to live upto days.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Cerebrum123 writing "He's back, and still can't process that Pilate being surprised that Jesus died so early would not necessarily mean that Jesus did not die as stated" is not true. Had Jesus been dead according to Pilate, there would have not been a need for confirmation by the centurion as per Mark 15:45. The truth is Pilate doubted Jesus death as in Mark 15:44, so Pilate requested for confirmation and after confirmation, Jesus body was given.


                              Cerebrum123 writing "He also brings back the "lingering death" comment" is because it is true* that crucifxion is so that took days to kill a person. This is admitted by Christian commentaries on Mark 15:44 at biblehub.com.* Such slow lingering death was the driver behind Pilate surprise to hear that Jesus was dead.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Hi Chrawnus, all my arguments for my case are from the Bible.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X