This is Paul's poetry, which even Paul did not understand. Poetry is OK if you understand that it is poetry. Poetry is like a parable, only more obscure. Like all parables, it is less to be believed, and more to be understood. Let's see if we can understand this. Christ is not dead. So how can Paul say, and how can you repeat what Paul said, "Christ died"? For this to work, we will have to redefine death to mean a three day vacation from life. We could also call that a "coma". Then we could say Christ went into a coma for our sins. In any scenario, you seem to be saying something bad happened to Christ so something "good" could happen to sinners. On the other hand, if Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, then maybe nothing bad has happened to Christ. So why do people wish that something bad has happened to Good, so something good can happen to sinners? Could it be that what is bad for Christ is good for sinners, and visa versa: what is good for Christ is bad for sinners? Next we have to figure out how a spiritual being, Christ, can be "buried" for any length of time, let alone three days. How do you bury a spiritual being? Isn't that like trying to put the wind into a bottle? If the spiritual being is the same yesterday, today and forever, I think we can safely assume the spiritual being has not changed into a material being with similar anatomy to animals. Are you saying a spiritual being, Christ, has changed, and become material being, despite the fact that Christ never changes? This is a lot like saying Christ has died, but we all know Christ has not died. So it seems like something, or somebody is lying. Someone is saying Christ has changed, but Christ doesn't change! Since the broad path (mainstream) explanation doesn't make sense, I have proposed alternative interpretations of Paul's poetry, explaining, for example, that a material world, and the dirt it is founded upon, represents a "dead Christ". But is such a world founded upon a stone footing of truth? I think not. If the material worlds of dirt were to be dismissed as not true (forgiven), then perhaps they would go away, and disappear, back to the empty void from which they came (I call it imagination, but I could also call it a pack of lies). Then, upon their disappearance, the real world of Christ could appear, no longer "buried" under a pile of lies, unrecognizable to sinners. We could call the re-appearance of reality, of Christ, the "resurrection". Then, we could argue we were dealing with appearances, and not the truth, since appearances are perception based, and perceptions are easily deception based. Then we could say it appeared that Christ died, but then we found out it wasn't true, which was good news. Why is this gospel not good news to you?
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom 3:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 2Cor 5:15 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Rev 3:30 By God's word, the payment/punishment for sin is death. Not just a physical but also spiritual, in fact man is already spiritually dead as he is born into sin with a fallen sin nature. Each of us stand guilty before God regardless of how good or how bad we live, all sin is reprehensible to God and He cannot allow it in His realm. Thus our conundrum, we can't live good enough to outweigh the bad. The Old Testament was symbolic of mankind's condition as sacrifices (death because/as payment for sin, there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood) were never ending. They pointed to the need for a perfect sacrifice. Jesus Christ was both Totally God and totally man. Being God he was without/above sin. Being man, he fulfills and relates to the physical. If He was just man, then he would not be able to have lived a sinless life and would be guilty like the rest of mankind. If He did not die, then there was no sacrifice and we are all still guilty. If He did not raise from the dead, then there would be no ressurection for believers. But Because Jesus was God, and died and was raised from the dead - those who put their trust and faith into Him, in His sacrificial substitutionary death are given, indwelt with the 3rd nature of the Triune God, His Holy Spirit, changing the Spiritualy Dead to Spiritualy Alive. This is the Deposit spoken of by Paul. set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. 2Cor 1:22 It is only the substitutionary death of Jesus and redemptive work by the Holy Spirit which God the Father sees as justification and saintifacation and not the individuals sinned stained merit. Therefore this is the gospel or good news preached by Paul and the other Apostles and carried and preached by His Church. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 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: 1Cor 3:4
Thanks for these questions. I'll try to answer them as best as possible. I see a couple of the questions come from the Pharisee, Paul. First we have to ask who is "all", and what is "sin"? We could also ask, what is the "glory of God"? Are you saying that anything short of the glory of God is sin? If man was made short of the glory of God, would that make God the sinner? On the other hand, if man equals the glory of God, are you saying man was made equal to God? Again, we could ask, what is "sin"? We could also ask, what is "death"? This sounds like poetry to me. Is there a deeper meaning to the poetry? Are you saying that in making man, God did NOT give the gift of eternal life? And, are you saying, in creating the Son of God, God DID give the gift of eternal life? If so, are you saying that God had the ability to give the gift of eternal life, but did not give it to man, and instead, gave it to his Son? This all depends on what "born again" means. If nobody knows what it means, probably that would disqualify anyone from seeing the Kingdom of God. Also, what is the "Kingdom of God"? If you don't know what it is, how can you see it? If the way is through life, why are you saying that the way is through death, specifically, the death of the truth? But if he did not die, how is this not a lie? If the way is through truth, how can you tell a lie about the death of life, and expect to receive any benefits? If it's possible to come back from the dead, then you have to redefine what "death" is. How do you define "death"? It appears you have a closed door (closed mind) in regards to my voice. When you say God, do you mean the "god of this world", or do you mean Good? Again, what is sin, and what is death, according to your own lexicon? It sounds like you are getting close by impugning the entire existence of man, no matter how good or how bad, so-to-speak. If the entire existence of man can be impugned, how then is man's maker not also a sinner? To me, "born in sin with a sin nature" sounds a lot like "made in sin with a sin nature". How far back are you willing to trace the lineage of guilt? Are you willing to go all the way back to the maker? Assuming the maker of man is the creator of the Son of God, are you saying that the maker made one fallible, and the other infallible? If so, is this not partiality? And, is partiality not sin? When you say there is no forgiveness without bloodshed, are you speaking of the "god of this world" or are you speaking of Good? If you are speaking of Good, i would say you are blaspheming. Certainly, the "god of this world" is blood-thirsty. I'm not arguing that. If the "god of this world" is also man's maker, i can understand why man would also be blood-thirsty, and prone to public displays of bloody murder under the euphemism "sacrifice". Wait. Are you saying man and God are totally different things? If so, how do you explain the fact that the god of this world made man as something totally different, and, presumably, "short of the glory of God"? Are you saying the god of this world did not make man? Are you saying Good made man bad? What are you saying? Because it appears you have convicted your own god of sin, having made man short of your own god's glory, and therefore, a sinner. Here's a follow up question: Is it good to be totally different from Good, or bad to be totally different from Good? Again, you impugn the existence of man as wholly sinful. I'm not arguing that. It is wholly sinful. But who is responsible for the wholly sinful nature of man? Is it man, or is it man's maker? It appears to me that the book has been thrown at man, framing man as the wholly responsible party to his own "nature". Explain nature. How is the nature of man not the way man was made? Well, we know he did not die, unless you change the definition of death to a three day vacation from life. He is not dead. So it appears someone is lying when the only way to approach Good is through the truth? So it appears there was no sacrifice, as i have been saying. And it appears man is still standing up to his eyeballs in sin. Well, if he did not die, how can he be raised from the dead? Again, it appears someone is lying. So, it appears there is no resurrection for believers. So you are saying life itself died? Who believes this? Do liars believe this? If liars believe this, does it matter what else the liars believe about the nature of God? If liars believe this, does it matter what else they believe about "spiritually dead" or "spiritually alive"? Again, if liars believe life itself has died, does it matter what else they believe about deposits, guarantees, and ownership? Again, if liars believe life has died, does it matter what they believe about substitutions, redemptions, justifications, sanctifications and merits? These are some fancy words. Can liars possibly know what they mean? Are you saying Paul was a liar? Are you saying Paul received his message from liars? If Christ was totally god, as you say, how was he buried? How do you bury a spiritual being? Sadly, what does it matter what you believe when your own testimony is contradictory, and convicts you of lying? Did Christ die according to scriptures, or according to liars? Is there a difference? What are "our sins"? Are you really willing that Christ die for your sins? I don't think you are. And since Christ is not dead, it appears Christ was also not willing to die for your sins.
Silence. Oh the peaceful silence. I guess there is no mainstream-official-story-Christian-comeback (no argument) to the fact that Christ is not dead. So far, there has been a claim that something that is totally 100% "God" as well as totally 100% man has died both physically and spiritually as a penalty/punishment for "our sins". It does seem that a physical person died, namely Jesus, as men die. But we've been told Jesus is 100% a spiritual God, and i have queried the philosophers here as to how anything that is 100% spiritual, perhaps even life and truth itself...can die? They want it both ways. They want him to be both types of Being, but when it comes to death, we are to believe that the death of the man side of the equation is supposed to satisfy some kind of death of the God side of the equation. But how does the God side of the equation actually die? And what evidence is there for this? No one is willing or able to answer this. Even if Jesus did die as men die, he did not stay dead. So technically, he did NOT die as men die, and if death is anything that is permanent, then no, he did not die. Indeed, many armchair Christians will tell us that Jesus was quite busy *preaching to those in hell* during the three days he was supposed to be "dead". I don't call that death at all! Does it matter how he was able to revive a physical form after preaching in hell? He did not die! At best, his body was temporarily hung up like a shirt in the closet, and then put back on after enough time had passed that most men would be considered "dead". But death only applies IF CHRIST IS 100% A BODY. Does any Christian seriously want to reduce the definition of Christ to 100% body, and no soul or spirit, and no divine nature? So, there was no sacrifice because nothing about the Son of God was forfeited, given up, or lost for any significant length of time. Really, is three days significant to a Being that dwells as master of eternity? Are Christians telling us that going three days without a physical body is a "sacrifice" for Christ? If that is a sacrifice, then getting out of prison for three days is also a sacrifice. If that is a sacrifice, then not eating Twinkies for three days is a sacrifice. Apparently, if you believe Christ died, you are "saved". By my reckoning, lies save sinners, and truth saves Christ. If the objective is to maintain a humanoid existence, and even come back from the dead ourselves, we need to believe these lies. I agree, anyone who believes these lies will come back from the dead. It's called "reincarnation". Christians are dreaming of at least one reincarnation, and wish to call it a euphemism: "resurrection". But if you can incarnate, and reincarnate once, you can reincarnate twice, three...a thousand times. I predict that the Christian wish for reincarnation will not be so easily domesticated, contrived and controlled to occur within a limited scope (just one more time). I predict that reincarnation will not cease until the mind that drives it repents from believing in lies about Christ (Christ is "dead"). I predict Christians who wish for this will be "born again", and again, and again, and again...ad nauseum, unable to enter the proverbial Kingdom of God, until finally, tired of being "born again", repent of the lies they believe in. In this way, yes, Christians must be born again, since one lifetime is not enough to expunge the deep web of lies that penetrate their consciousness. They need more time to learn, as deep psychosis needs more time to heal. They will have plenty of time, as the whole purpose of time, at this point is to heal from a deep psychosis. For three days, Christ escaped the solitary confinement of a prison called the "body". The only people who believe this is "death" are those who still value the body, and put it's worth above the spiritual nature of Christ. We are then brainwashed to believe that Christ actually WANTS a body, so much, that he took one back to the Kingdom of God as a souvenir to wear forever, as if it wasn't the prison that it is. Again, the only people who believe this are those who are happy to stay in prison for several more incarnations.
1. good 1 ... I would be willing to spend the time breaking down all we have said... but many of your arguments turn on you changing the definition of words. Or defining away the bible by saying we do not know what Jesus really said. Its true.. we do not know. 2. Also, you have every right to preach your religion. But, if we are talking about Jesus of the bible lets talk about Jesus of the bible. If you are talking about Jesus outside the bible... you can make up whatever you wish. Which is fine... but lets be clear your vision of Jesus is not the Jesus described in the bible. Your Jesus is different. 3. Regarding good and sacrfice. a. The Good Samaritan made sacrifices b. Jesus and God made a sacrifice when he suffered in the Garden and at the hands of the Romans and on the cross. he bore tremendous pain so that our transgressions against the God did not prevent us from being with God. That is not only good for us that Good sacrificing for us.
The Christian story is that God first created humans with original sin and then destroyed them for their sin. Then God, who is also Jesus, impregnated a woman with himself in order to be born so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to save humans from the sin that he made them have in the first place. God? lol
When I say that probably only 5% of the red letters actually came out of Jesus' mouth, there's a good chance my version of his message is different from the official story (the biblical version). I thought this was understood. I'm OK admitting my version of his message is sharply divergent from so many other interpretations of the Bible going by the name 'Christian', the Bible itself being an interpretation of Jesus' message, showing the biases and motives of each author, even one author diverging from another (as in the case of the Paul-James controversy). That notwithstanding, if 5% of what I'm saying Jesus would have said (as it does line up with the overall message that I understand) can be found in the bible, then it cannot be said that my version of his message is extra-biblical. (Not that I think biblical confirmation is important, but to emphasize there are valid ways of looking at the info there that diverge from the popular mainstream 'official' interpretations...and also to show that the biblical version of the message is actually internally cognitively dissonant with itself. ) There are actually two different gospels in the book, only reconcilable (not really) by high paid priests and pastors, who approach the book, and interpret the book like lawyers, ignoring occam's razor, forcing opposites (for example old and new) into a combination of one thing (old wine into new wineskins). In this context, any agreement from anything Jesus is said to have said (red letters) can be seen as a curiosity, and not any needed confirmation from what I'm saying is a compromised source. The Bible is useful to you in that it probably mainly supports your chosen version of Jesus' message. It's not very useful to me except to point out those sayings within it which diverge with itself and the popular interpretations of it. I pointed out, for example the impossibility of all the events it says happened the evening before the crucifixion. And yet I would agree he was historically crucified (for different reasons both his and Pilate's)...and walked out of a tomb some days later (some say three days). With so much in agreement, why would you wish to marginalize my efforts to communicate by saying my version is extra-biblical, or that im mincing the meaning of words? When Jesus called all people 'dead', and called death 'sleep', was he mincing meanings of words beyond your comprehension? I have equated Christ to Reality itself. While this might change the commonly understood meaning (the official story), why must you continue to believe in the traditionally commonly understood official story, and complain about the equation I've revealed? I think it's time to admit that there is no Greek equivalent (in terms of actual meaning) to the Jewish term Messiah, few, if anybody, knowing what Christ meant in the Greek lexicon before it was borrowed (expropriated), loosely, to stand in for an even more vague Jewish liturgical concept. What is clear is the ongoing attempt to lock the meanings of Jesus' message down under Jewish dominated interpretations...for the same exact motives. I don't need the term Christ at all, if you want to insist you have trademarked copyrights on it. It is difficult for you to get away from the fact that the word is meant to describe what he actually is, in reality, rather than per tradition. Think of another word to describe his actual identity, and I will consider using it. But it has to be a unique word, besides God, because that one has also been used, abused, and expropriated by deceptive priests who have been interested in controlling animalistic tribes and their traditions. Try to come up with a unique word to describe something no eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard, and what no words can even describe. For me, that is a word signifying astonishment in accepted common vernacular: Christ! (with an exclamation mark). With so many divergent interpretations going by the name Christian, I think Christians have proved that there is no consensus that can be labeled "the biblical Jesus". It is only possible to reach consensus on the meaning of his message, which involves honest detective work as much as it involves correct interpretation. The Bible can never be more than a book of clues for an honest detective. It either reveals the truth, or it covers it up (murders it). It's official narrative, describing the murder of truth, does cover up the very meaning of what it means to murder truth. For this reason, Protestants have not gained any new insight at all, despite breaking from the Mother church and it's official narrative (interpretation of the bible). The non-revelation of a book called "revelations" is a case in point. Btw, I think it is indisputable that the idea Jesus submitted to, and experienced pain during crucifixion is an entirely extra-biblical version of "Jesus" and/or "Christ". There is literally no reference to pain in the book, and merely one reference to a refusal of pain killers (which implies he had his own way of dealing with the issue).
Fair point. And any logical person would think that the person arguing that Jesus rose from the dead would have the burden to show that he rose from the dead.