Understanding God’s election

[JudgeRightly]

That we personally don't understand how a particular thing was done/achieved does not make it a "miracle" except in semantics terms. Depends perhaps on your definition of "miracle".

The definition of a miracle (from Oxford Languages, through a quick Google search):

"a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

In other words, you will never understand through the study of nature or the scientific laws how the miracles in the Bible were performed, BECAUSE they are super(above)-natural(nature).

You could go back in time with a box of matches and create fire at will in front of cavemen and they might deem it was a "miracle", as to them it is something not understood, but to you or I it's no miracle, just something very understandable. How you personally use that "power" over cavemen comes down to your moral compass. You could use it to pretend you were a "god" and try and subdue them, or you could explain to them how it was done and indeed how they could replicate it.

"Cavemen" were human beings. Not necessarily the brightest humans, but humans nonetheless.

I think you underestimate the genius of ancient man.

I personally interpret the Bible stories of Jesus' miracles as the description of an alchemist using the great alchemy products, elixirs, powerful substances and so on. On that basis I can certainly respect him as an alchemist, an adept, a very competent person in that philosophical/scientific discipline and see that he used his alchemical abilities for good deeds. When I read the many 1000s of alchemy texts spanning centuries and learn from them what the White and Red Stones can do, I can see the same synergy in the Bible with Jesus's miracles. It all makes sense. For me, Jesus was unquestionably an alchemist and he taught his disciples the secrets of that craft.

Laughable nonsense.

Going back to the issue of faith and with that alchemy knowledge in hand, it's somewhat difficult to believe the religious interpretations of the stories which seek to conceal or ignore Jesus's alchemy skills.

Well yeah, when you try to read the bible through an unevenly ground lens, of course you're going to have a hard time understanding what it says.

Try taking the glasses off, and reading them without your a priori beliefs in mind.

The definition is a poor one for quite obviously "normal physical processes" simple means those processes of Physics which we currently understand. Hence the apparent destructive health zapping nature of a lump of Uranium 100s of years ago would have been deemed "not normal physics" because at that time we didn't know what radiation was.

Lack of understanding of a subject currently that can be explained through physical processes does not translate to the idea that we'll someday somehow understand how miracles work as though they are explainable through the natural laws.

Miracles are by definition "super"-natural.

The only real definition of a miracle is just an event that a given witness currently can not understand due to lack of knowledge and/or intelligence.

False.

First point to note, the Stones of alchemy are not "magic" in any way whatsoever. They are science, Physics. Chemistry. They simply happen to involve parts of those sciences that have not generally been revealed to the public.

Alchemy is bunk, and the sooner you come to realize that, the better off you'll be.

That's not remotely how I see it. He was utilising high level physics/chemistry way above the people's knowledge and in the wrong hands that's incredibly dangerous, more than you could fathom.

No, He wasn't.

So he did what he did genuinely and in his own way

There was indeed purpose in everything Jesus did.

But it's not what you're claiming.

and kept the secrets for himself and his disciples.

The reason for not revealing the truth of what He was saying is literally given within scripture.

But you're too preoccupied with your alchemy nonsense to notice.

He was thus responsible with the power he had at his fingertips. So no, not a liar nor a lunatic.

If what Jesus taught was not literally true, then Jesus was a liar, and not worthy of anyone's attention.

You may think him a liar for referring to certain terms but that's because you don't understand the allegorical terms he used.

Using allegory is common when you want to teach a greater truth.

Using allegory itself as the lesson to be taught is not.

Jesus used allegory to teach greater truths, truths that would be necessary for His people in the coming trial by fire that they were about to go through.

And that's still incorrect for nothing was above or beyond the laws of nature that happened.

False.

It's just that you and many others don't yet understand what Nature can do or how it's wonders can be followed and exploited by humans.

No study of the natural laws will ever result in knowing how to turn water into wine, let alone how to raise the dead. And not just any wine, Jesus turned water into GOOD wine, the kind you serve at the BEGINNING of a party, not the kind you serve when your guests are already drunk.

Forget turning lead into gold, you'll never be able to turn water into wine, because it's simply not possible without divine intervention.

Curing blindness is not remotely supernatural.

So you can do it without any sort of medical technology? Literally just rubbing your own spit in someone's eyes?

Yeah, no, if you tried that, you'd be sued for malpractice, and probably charged with assault.

Curing disease is not remotely supernatural.

It is when you tell someone "Go show yourselves to the priests," and as they go, they're cleansed.

ESPECIALLY when one of those people who was healed returns and gives glory to God, praising Jesus for healing him.

Restoring life to a very recently (< 3 days) deceased person

Someone who is dead and decaying cannot be brought back to life, not without divine intervention.

As Clete mentioned, Lazarus was in the tomb for 4 days.

Jesus clearly stated "Lazarus is dead."

Was Jesus lying?

Martha said, "Lord, by this time, there is a stench, for Lazarus has been dead four days."

Was Martha lying 1) about Lazarus being dead, and 2) that he had been dead for four days already?

John 11:44 tells us once more that "he who had died" came forth at Jesus' call, "bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face . . . wrapped with a cloth."

is not supernatural.

I'd like to see you try going to a graveyard, and opening one of the recently installed tombs there, and to cry with a loud voice "Come forth!" and have the one who was entombed there come out of it on their own power.

Oh wait, you won't do that, because you inherently know it's not possible, not with any level of technology.

Nature is a wonderful thing.

The One who created nature is even more wonderful.

One has to wonder why you refuse to acknowledge Him, and instead worship the creation rather than the creator.

Your body is an incredibly clever thing. It knows how to heal itself.

Indeed!

But your body cannot bring itself back from being dead.

But it can't do so if its healing mechanisms have been obstructed nor if it is lacking in a particular "fuel" it needs to do its job.

Yeah, I don't care how much "fuel" you give a dead body. At best, you'll set it on fire, further destroying it.

It's call the law of biogenesis. Life can only come from life. Life cannot come from non-life.

Jesus had that "fuel" and was able to administer it to others and thereby achieve what seemed like miracles to very simple people.

Once Jesus was dead, if He was merely another human being, no matter how special, He would be out of your alleged "fuel."

He could not, ever, "refuel" Himself, because He would be dead. Non-living. And since life can only come from life, and cannot come from that which is not living, Jesus would not have been able to revive Himself.

Which is why His resurrection is irrefutable proof that He is God.

"Miracle" is a word of the English language. It's definition therefore comes from works that deal with English language, not from religious works.

So what? Concepts can cross language barriers.

If you want to know what a Dandelion is you don't go looking in the Ford Escort Haynes Car Manual!!

Supra, re: miracle definition

The definition of "miracle" is given in an English dictionary, nowhere else as it is a language term.

Again, so what?

A miracle "an event that APPEARS inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God."

No, you added the word "appears."

Here it is again:

"a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

You can't just change the definition of a word so that it suits your beliefs.

The fact that, to you, or to any current scientist it APPEARS to be inexplicable by the laws of nature, in no ways means IT IS inexplicable.

Something that IS inexplicable by the laws of nature is, by definition, a miracle.

The things done in scripture that are called miracles are, in fact, actual miracles.

It simply means it is CURRENTLY inexplicable by a given people of a given time period. Nothing more.

There is no possible naturalistic explanation for the the miracles of the Bible, because they are, by definition, miracles.

It's completely relevant because the Stones of alchemy absolutely can cure blindness and/or raise recently deceased people. Go read any of the 1000s of alchemy texts and you'll read all about the benefits the Stone bestows on humans.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

*breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

Alchemy was disproven through the very science you claim as your authority over miracles.

Turning lead into gold is possible, not through alchemy, but through nuclear transmutation, and not in any significant amount. It requires a particle accelerator, not alchemy.

Turning water into wine, and GOOD wine, at that, however, is simply not possible, not even through nuclear transmutation, and certainly not through just telling someone to fill some waterpots with water, then telling them to draw the water and take it to the master of the feast.

Assume for one minute that Jesus was in fact an Alchemist

No, I will not.

It's such a ridiculous idea on its face, that it doesn't need to be refuted.

and did have the wondrous Stone of alchemy which gives one the ability to transmute one matter into another and which heals a man from all impurity and illness. Everything Jesus did fits with this assumption purely from the story/narrative perspective, but when you add to that the plethora of scripture verses that talk about the Stone and the processes by which it is created and the benefits the Stone bestows on man, then you have right there a solid foundation for that belief.

What a load of hooey.

Occam's Razor suggests that this simple solution is far more likely than the religious concepts of magical hocus pocus miracles.

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

We say that what the Bible says plainly, taken at face value, is the correct interpretation.

You say that the Bible is "allegorical" for something that is hidden, that requires special knowledge to be able to handle, and that there is an alternate explanation for everything in the Bible, that somehow lines up with texts from other religions.

Do you not see the problem?

You're appealing to greater complexity and then somehow claiming that your solution is the simpler one?

According to Occam's razor, we can throw your view out, because it's far more complex than ours.

The Bible is full of allegories.

No one denies that the Bible contains allegories.

But entirely allegorical it is not.

And Occam's razor is in our favor, because you're appealing to greater complexity when it's not needed.

At some points in the Bible Jesus himself is the allegory.

Yeah, no. Everything in the Bible points to Christ. The entire book is about Him.

Which means if He is not God, then he is not worthy of the attention it brings Him, but on the other hand, if He is God, then you're in some seriously big trouble, and you need to repent of your false beliefs.

There are no alternatives.

What you believe God to be and what God actually is creates the dilemma you have there.

What we "believe God to be" has nothing to do with it.

Either Jesus is God, or He is not.

If He is not God, then He is a liar, and not to be trusted for anything.

If He IS God, then you SHOULD put your faith in Him.

 

[marke]

“And those who heard it said, “Who then can be saved?” But He (Jesus) said,
“The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” (Luke 18:26-27)

Humans cannot save themselves, but God can and will save any and all sinners who repent of their sins and come to Him for forgiveness.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

The definition of a miracle (from Oxford Languages, through a quick Google search):

"a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

No, you added the word "appears."

I added nothing, you just chose your dictionary and I chose mine

Miracle
1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: miracle

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: miracle

ahdictionary.com

Miracle
something that is very surprising or difficult to believe:
something very strange that happens which you cannot explain

miracle

1. something that is very surprising or difficult to believe: 2. something…

dictionary.cambridge.org

That religious groups desire to take ownership and authority of the term "miracle" for their own ends and narratives is no surprise to anyone, but doing so doesn't make their preferred definition true.

In other words, you will never understand through the study of nature or the scientific laws how the miracles in the Bible were performed, BECAUSE they are super(above)-natural(nature).

Hogwash. The "study of nature and scientific laws" really just means the very limited exposure to science that the Hoi Polloi are allowed to see and understand. There is far more science than that. YOU likely won't ever understand some of that science because you're locked in your comfortable paradigm and don't have the courage to step out of it. That doesn't mean the science doesnt exist, for it plainly does exist.

Well yeah, when you try to read the bible through an unevenly ground lens, of course you're going to have a hard time understanding what it says.

No, when you try to read your Bible with religious blinkers on, of course you're going to have a hard time seeing and understanding the true secrets recorded therein.

Try taking the glasses off, and reading them without your a priori beliefs in mind.

Try taking the blinkers off and go and learn something about alchemy, pray for grace and understanding and then go re-read your Bible.
Seek and you will find.

Lack of understanding of a subject currently that can be explained through physical processes does not translate to the idea that we'll someday somehow understand how miracles work as though they are explainable through the natural laws.

Yes it does. You don't (personally) currently have the capacity to explain some things, events, happenings and those events, happenings nevertheless DO happen and ARE happening. You don't know for example about ORMUS and how ordinary elements can be changed and have their electrons spin in different ways thereby producing new versions of those elements which have utterly extraordinary properties. You don't know about alchemy and what is produces in the same vein. To you, these things would appear to be miracles. For those that understand it's just wonderful science, the properties of the amazing universe in which we find ourselves. And certainly those transformations utilise and need a special kind of energy or etheric life force that is everywhere around us. If you have a need to call that energy "divine" or "god" then hey ho but it doesn't take away from the fact that it is simply the universal life force.

Miracles are by definition "super"-natural.

False. Miracles are solely by the definition of religion, super natural. Religion wants to own and take authority for the term in order to create a narrative. It doesn't change reality which is that everything is a part of the universe and the univeresal laws and construct. Just because you don't yet understand it doesn't mean it is not so.

Alchemy is bunk, and the sooner you come to realize that, the better off you'll be.

You don't know the first thing about it. But you will

No, He wasn't.

Was too

If what Jesus taught was not literally true, then Jesus was a liar, and not worthy of anyone's attention.

We've already discussed how God told Adam that if he ate from the forbidden tree he would die that same day.

Adam ate, Adam did NOT die. Went on to live 930 yrs.

Everything else is religious narrative constructed to appease this uncomfortable part of scripture.

Jesus taught according to the period he was living in and according to the cultures and traditions of the people of that period. The things he knew and the powers that he had at his fingertips (the science) were far far in advance of anything the people knew or could ever understand imho. How could you explain for example nuclear physics to a 5yr old? You could only talk in vague stories and concepts. Hence the parables. Hence the truths were concealed within those parabales and elsewhere in the Bible to be seen and understood only by those with they "eyes to see" and those who would come 1000s of years later (like us !!).

Using allegory is common when you want to teach a greater truth.
Using allegory itself as the lesson to be taught is not.
Jesus used allegory to teach greater truths, truths that would be necessary for His people in the coming trial by fire that they were about to go through.

None of which gets us away from the fact that Jesus also concealed vital secrets in his allegories and parables and that much of the Bible likewise conceals such secrets.

No study of the natural laws will ever result in knowing how to turn water into wine, let alone how to raise the dead.

Hogwash

Forget turning lead into gold, you'll never be able to turn water into wine, because it's simply not possible without divine intervention.

Ah now here's a glimmer of hope. A little chink in the armour. You believe then that in fact IT IS possible to turn lead into gold provided that we have access to some sort of divine element? Well well . . . . .

In fact alchemy operates by using that "divine" source, the Spiritus Mundi, the secret solvent without which nothing of use can be accomplished.

So you can do it without any sort of medical technology? Literally just rubbing your own spit in someone's eyes?

No not literally just rubbing spit into someone's eyes and that's NOT what Jesus did. In fact he used the "earth" of the ground which he moistened with spit and then most likely added a tiny portion of the Stone to it. The Bible naturally doesn't afford such important detail for obvious reasons. You would have to have been there to know exactly what Jesus did and what he concealed from those around him. All we have are stories written by people many years after the events.

The Philosopher's Stone is a substance imbued with "life", with that special etheric energy and it's potency and power can be multiplied exponentially. That's why it's kept secret, it's a really dangerous power. If a human takes in massively multiplied Stone then very dramatic things happen. There are testimonies for example of a persons entire skin sloughing off and being regrown. It would be a massive system shock and very unpleasant to go through. Hence Philosophers, Alchemists start small, with low potency and take regular amounts of the Stone, little and often and thus gradually their bodies are purified, expelling all unnatural substances, healing all disease. But no question, a highly multiplied Stone could restore someone's sight. But these are dangerous things and need tobe done by an expert, an Adept/Master of which Jesus was obviously one.

It is when you tell someone "Go show yourselves to the priests," and as they go, they're cleansed.

ESPECIALLY when one of those people who was healed returns and gives glory to God, praising Jesus for healing him.

Well of course you would do so. You wouldn't have a clue what just happened so you would praise the person who made it happen nonetheless.
If a man were today to go heal someones cancer the patient would have no clue how it happened but would be highly appreciated of the man for doing it regardless.

Someone who is dead and decaying cannot be brought back to life, not without divine intervention.

Yep and the Stone IS representative of that divine intervention in that it contains that "divine" life force in potent quantity.

Martha said, "Lord, by this time, there is a stench, for Lazarus has been dead four days."
Was Martha lying 1) about Lazarus being dead, and 2) that he had been dead for four days already?

John 11:44 tells us once more that "he who had died" came forth at Jesus' call, "bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face . . . wrapped with a cloth."

I'd like to see you try going to a graveyard, and opening one of the recently installed tombs there, and to cry with a loud voice "Come forth!" and have the one who was entombed there come out of it on their own power.

But here you're comparing me, with a master alchemist, which is a pointless comparison. I'm not a brain surgeon either but despite that I know that other people are and can be brain surgeons. I know that brains can be surgically fixed. Likewise I believe that people can be healers and life restorers provided they have the Stone and the knowledge of how to use it.

One has to wonder why you refuse to acknowledge Him, and instead worship the creation rather than the creator.

I simply don't perceive "Him" as you choose to make reference, the same way as you do.
I acknowledge the universal life force, the source of all life, pure, immortal, invulnerable.

But your body cannot bring itself back from being dead.

Just as it can't give itself life, for life is that flow of universal life force, which we can't see, hear or smell but which pervades every living thing.
The body is just a material construct which is animated and vivified by the life force.

Yeah, I don't care how much "fuel" you give a dead body. At best, you'll set it on fire, further destroying it.

When that fuel is the universal life force then your preconceptions have no meaning or relevance

It's call the law of biogenesis. Life can only come from life. Life cannot come from non-life.

Yup. There is only life, it's always here, all around us, you are breathing it in right now. Stop breathing and you'll perish pretty quickly.
You're only taking in very limited quantities of that "life" right now and it's only enough to sustain you on a fairly basic level. You exist, you live, move, talk etc but at the same time the forces of entropy are also pulling on your body and have the upper hand. You're not getting enough of the "life energy" from breathing or from the food and drink you take in or from your exposure to the sun or from anywhere else. Hence you are fighting a losing battle. The odds are already stacked against you. You are dying. Your body is slowly losing the race. You are aging and getting weaker and weaker. All of that can be stopped and reversed by simply having access to more of that life-energy. The question is, where can you get more of that energy and how can you get it into your body. And that Brother, is alchemy. How did you suppose that ancients like Noah and others managed to live life spans of 900+ years? Magic?!!! No ! They all had the Stone. It's that simple.

Once Jesus was dead, if He was merely another human being, no matter how special, He would be out of your alleged "fuel."

He could not, ever, "refuel" Himself, because He would be dead.

Would it not be possible for others to revive him who had the necessary means to do so? One or more of his disciples for example who had been taught "the mysteries of the kingdom"?

Which is why His resurrection is irrefutable proof that He is God.

Well not really if indeed Jesus was treated and brought back by others who had the means to do so. Since the events happened 1000s of years ago we have no real way of knowing. All we have are the religious texts written by those wanting to further the religion.

Something that IS inexplicable by the laws of nature is, by definition, a miracle.

It is "deemed" a miracle only to the point that we can not currently explain it. Once we are able to explain it, it is no longer a miracle.

For example,

The Miraculous Catch of Fish

• Biblical Account: After Jesus' resurrection, he instructed his disciples to cast their nets, resulting in a catch of 153 large fish.
• Scientific Explanation: Heavy winds could have churned the water, creating an anoxic state that suffocated fish, causing them to float to the surface.
• Historical Context: This phenomenon has been observed in the Sea of Galilee and other bodies of water, providing a natural basis for the biblical account.

The Parting of the Red Sea​

• Biblical Account: In the Book of Exodus, Moses parts the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape from the Egyptians.
• Scientific Explanation: Some scientists suggest that a natural phenomenon, such as a strong wind or a tsunami, could have created a temporary land bridge or caused the waters to recede. Research indicates that strong winds can push water away from a shore, creating a temporary dry pathway.

The Healing Miracles of Jesus​

• Biblical Account: Jesus is said to have healed the sick, blind, and lame.
• Scientific Explanation: Many conditions that were considered incurable in ancient times may have had natural explanations, such as psychosomatic illnesses, spontaneous remission, or misdiagnosed conditions. Modern medicine recognizes that belief and faith can play significant roles in healing, potentially explaining some of these accounts through the lens of psychology and the placebo effect.

St. Bernadette's Vision at Lourdes​

• Historical Account: St. Bernadette Soubirous reported visions of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes, leading to claims of miraculous healings at the site.
• Scientific Explanation: Investigations into the healings at Lourdes have often found that many can be attributed to natural healing processes, while others are more difficult to explain. The psychological impact of faith and the environment of Lourdes may play a role in the reported healings.

The Weeping Statues​

• Historical Account: Various religious statues, such as those of the Virgin Mary, have reportedly wept real tears or blood.
• Scientific Explanation: Investigations have often revealed that the "tears" can be attributed to condensation, moisture in the environment, or chemical reactions with the materials of the statue. For example, some cases have shown that the tears could come from the materials used in the statue itself, such as porous stone or paint.

The Shroud of Turin​

• Historical Account: The Shroud of Turin is believed by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus, bearing the image of a crucified man.
• Scientific Explanation: Scientific studies, including carbon dating, have suggested that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages rather than the time of Jesus. Additionally, various hypotheses have been proposed regarding how the image was created, including natural processes, artistic techniques, or even the effects of heat and light.

The Blood of San Gennaro

• Historical Account: The blood of St. Januarius, a 3rd-century martyr, is said to liquefy miraculously three times a year in Naples, Italy.
• Scientific Explanation: Studies have indicated that the blood's liquefaction may be due to the physical properties of the material itself, which could be influenced by temperature and agitation, rather than a supernatural event.

The Resurrection of Lazarus​

• Biblical Account: Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead after he has been in the tomb for four days.
• Scientific Explanation: Some suggest that Lazarus may not have been dead but in a deep coma or state of suspended animation, which was misinterpreted as death. Modern medicine recognizes conditions like catalepsy that could mimic death.

The Healing of the Paralytic

• Biblical Account: Jesus heals a paralyzed man, enabling him to walk.
• Scientific Explanation: Modern medicine recognizes that many conditions leading to paralysis can sometimes improve spontaneously or with rehabilitation. Psychological factors, such as belief in healing, can also play a significant role in recovery.

The things done in scripture that are called miracles are, in fact, actual miracles.

To the extent that they were events not yet understood by science then yes. They will not always be so.

There is no possible naturalistic explanation for the the miracles of the Bible, because they are, by definition, miracles.

See above examples

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

*breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

Childish

Alchemy was disproven through the very science you claim as your authority over miracles.

False.

Alchemy was the forerunner to modern day chemistry and is still being undertaken today. I have already provided proof of this with links to Lawrence Principe, Drew Professor of the Humanities at Johns Hopkins University in the Department of History of Science and Technology and the Department of Chemistry. Principe has already succeeded in replicating many alchemical processes and producing very remarkable products.

William R. Newman, Distinguished Professor and Ruth N. Halls Professor in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University has also devoted much of his life studying alchemy and its history.

There are many others

Turning lead into gold is possible, not through alchemy, but through nuclear transmutation, and not in any significant amount. It requires a particle accelerator, not alchemy.

Saying so does not make it true. Scientists and governments are spending £millions on investigation into cold fusion, low energy nuclear transformation at room temperatures.

Cold fusion is making a scientific comeback

Physicists and engineers want to forget about missteps from the 1980s and forge ahead with new experiments in low-energy nuclear reactions.

www.popsci.com

Yeah, no. Everything in the Bible points to Christ. The entire book is about Him.

The term Christ in the Bible is also at times allegorical. So no, not everything is about Christ the person.

Which means if He is not God, then he is not worthy of the attention it brings Him

How so? If there existed a master alchemist today who could cure cancers and all diseases wouldn't they quite rightly be revered by today's society (and likely hated by Pharmaceuticals)?

but on the other hand, if He is God, then you're in some seriously big trouble, and you need to repent of your false beliefs.

Religious codswallop. If there is a God then it's most certainly not of the nature that corrupt religion peddles him as. Religion is a control mechanism, a societal control system. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with who or what God really is. It's a trap billions fall into or are wilfully lead into by corrupt people or those who themselves are already trapped. It's a system that wilfully employs well-known psychological techniques and manipulations on innocent people in order to control their hearts and minds and make it as difficult as possible for them to escape. Those "spells" have no hold on me any more.

There are no alternatives.

There are. There is reality, which is nothing remotely to do with religious nonsense.

What we "believe God to be" has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with whether you will utterly waste your current and subsequent lives and whether you will ever escape from the prison planet you are currently held on. Only by truly understanding what "God" actually is can you ever hope to escape and break free. Till then you remain an ignorant subjugated slave of the system.

Either Jesus is God, or He is not.

Or he's a metaphor for the Stone or he's a man with a connection to a "divine" source of energy and so on. Your limitations are the result of religious indoctrination blinkers.

If He is not God, then He is a liar, and not to be trusted for anything.

He's only a liar if He actually exists or existed at all outside of written Bible stories or if he actually did say any of the things that the writers said he stated years after they claim he actually said them.

If He IS God, then you SHOULD put your faith in Him.

Faith is the core factor that causes all religious upheaval and conflict, the practice of failing to think critically, to put aside rational thinking and cease to exercise evidential inquiry. Faith is the culprit that makes ordinary humans in raving extremists who subsequently can't break free from their self-imposed paradigms. We must hold any thing or anyone whom we choose to revere, accountable for all their actions, past and present as well as for their inactions and indifference towards others. Above all we must not engage in the practice of self-deception for the sake of peer pressure from others or a perceived need to conform to others around us. Reality is king, truth is king and is that which is quantifyable and testable and veridical.

Good reading:

The End Of Faith - Sam Harris

 

[Derf]

How so? Show me the syllogism.

Further, it isn't my logic. Jesus laid down His own life. He did it willingly and had He not submitted Himself to it, no one would have been able to play a finger on Him.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”


By what logic does it mean that?

There are two parts of Jesus' point, dealing with 1. His death, and 2. His resurrection.

His laying down of His life is not suicide. He doesn't take His own life, but He goes to His death by other parties willingly. Do you agree so far? Yet He He says he lays it down "of himself". So "of himself" does not mean "at His own hand", as that would be suicide.

This is compared directly with the next point, that He will take up His life again using the word "power' (or "authority"). Since "power" in the first point doesn't mean He does it at His own hand (suicide), neither is it necessary that He does the second at His own hand. Therefore, you can't use that verse to say that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, but His resurrection, like His death, was at someone else's hand, even though He has "power" to do both. So "power" doesn't mean He kills Himself or raises Himself.

All three members of the Trinity were involved in His resurrection, which makes sense since they are all One anyway.

Of course. One can't very well rise from the dead without being intimately involved. Just like at our resurrection, we won't be mere spectators.

God the Father​

• Galatians 1:1: “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.”
• Acts 2:24: “But God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

God the Son​

• John 2:19: “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’”

This one has more direct wording, but notice that the destruction is not coming from Him, which confirms what I was saying about the other. So this looks more like that he will rise again, that they will see Him standing (raised) again after He dies.

• John 10:17-18: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

God the Holy Spirit​

• Romans 8:11: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”
• 1 Peter 3:18: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.”

In other words, speaking of Jesus raising Himself from the dead is both biblical and NOT exclusive of either the Father or the Spirit being equally involved.

Agreed that they all play a part. Just like Lazarus had to "come forth" when Jesus called him from the grave.

And that is the real point here.

SoT acts as if there isn't any event in the bible that transcends nature, which is just nonsense.

Agreed.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

There are two parts of Jesus' point, dealing with 1. His death, and 2. His resurrection.

His laying down of His life is not suicide. He doesn't take His own life, but He goes to His death by other parties willingly. Do you agree so far?

How are you defining suicide here?

There are clearly schools of thought that assert that our true life, being, essence is immortal no matter what we do, that we are more than flesh and blood and thus have another spiritual, etheric side to our nature which can not perish. Your argument hinges on where you stand on such issues.

For the average unknowing human being, the prospect of "death" is seen to be final, the end, nothing of them existing afterwards except a lifeless physical carcass. Assuming that is incorrect and that every human has a non-physical nature then dying merely refers to the expiration of the physical body and NOT of the spiritual essence.

This being the case, how are you defining suicide?

If we assume that Jesus understood both natures then his giving up of his physical body was in no ways suicide for he knew himself, knew his own nature and knew that in fact the totality of who he was simply could not die. It was an impossibility for him to ever die.

So when he talks about going to his death he doesn't really mean death in the sense that most humans define it. He meant the perishing, expiration of his physical body. On this basis it really doesn't matter a whole bunch whether he himself made his physical body perish or whether others did it.

Yet He He says he lays it down "of himself". So "of himself" does not mean "at His own hand", as that would be suicide.

Again the term suicide is not helpful here. Jesus allowed, permitted others to destroy his physical body. He could have prevented it but he deliberately allowed them to do it for it was part of gods plan. A necessary action. It was never suicide because he knew he could not die in any real sense.

but His resurrection, like His death, was at someone else's hand, even though He has "power" to do both.

It's certainly possibly imho that one or more of his disciples helped facilitate his revival or any other agent of God.

This one has more direct wording, but notice that the destruction is not coming from Him, which confirms what I was saying about the other. So this looks more like that he will rise again, that they will see Him standing (raised) again after He dies.

Just out of interest what do you believe in regards to who the resurrected Jesus was. Was he:

1. The original Jesus with the original physical body that had been revived and restored physically albeit still with the old wounds?

2. A completely new creation of God, a new being of spirit that reflected greatly the former physical image of Jesus?

Bearing in mind that in both options the core underlying spiritual essence of Jesus was the same in both cases.

In other words did Jesus receive a new physical body or was his spiritual essence re-inserted into his old body?

 

[Derf]

How are you defining suicide here?

Good question. I would say it means actively participating in the mechanism of death, at least for this discussion. Eg., if you pull the trigger, even if someone else is holding the gun.

There are clearly schools of thought that assert that our true life, being, essence is immortal no matter what we do, that we are more than flesh and blood and thus have another spiritual, etheric side to our nature which can not perish. Your argument hinges on where you stand on such issues.

That's astute of you.

For the average unknowing human being, the prospect of "death" is seen to be final, the end, nothing of them existing afterwards except a lifeless physical carcass.

I'm not sure that's true. The average human being would probably think there is some kind of life after death. It's in most of our language. People don't just die, they "pass on", "go to a better place", "are released from their bodies", etc. These are not just Christian terms.

Assuming that is incorrect and that every human has a non-physical nature then dying merely refers to the expiration of the physical body and NOT of the spiritual essence.

This being the case, how are you defining suicide?

If we assume that Jesus understood both natures then his giving up of his physical body was in no ways suicide for he knew himself, knew his own nature and knew that in fact the totality of who he was simply could not die. It was an impossibility for him to ever die.

This is part of the problem with the concept of an immortality of a functioning part of a person. Nothing important actually dies when one dies. Yet the concept of death as provided by God through Moses, that we return to the dust from which we came, suggests more of the other understanding of death.

So when he talks about going to his death he doesn't really mean death in the sense that most humans define it. He meant the perishing, expiration of his physical body. On this basis it really doesn't matter a whole bunch whether he himself made his physical body perish or whether others did it.

It does if the deliberate killing of one's self (in any form) is considered a sin, since Jesus wasn't supposed to sin. Suicide, while not mentioned by name in the bible, is depicted in a few stories, like the end of King Saul's life, and the end of Samson's life.

Again the term suicide is not helpful here. Jesus allowed, permitted others to destroy his physical body. He could have prevented it but he deliberately allowed them to do it for it was part of gods plan. A necessary action. It was never suicide because he knew he could not die in any real sense.

You're saying, I think, that nothing is ever suicide, assuming the immortality of the real (non-material) person, since there isn't really anything called "death", and death is required for suicide.

But is letting someone kill you when you have the means to prevent it the same as suicide? It depends on what the means is. For instance, if I have a gun and my opponent has a gun, I can prevent him from killing me by killing him first, but would it be murder? Jesus told us that dying for someone, though rare, is commendable. So a suicide that saves someone's life might be acceptable to God, like falling on a grenade. Maybe that doesn't even count as a suicide.

Whatever the case, it doesn't seem like Jesus committed suicide. But He did die. Rejecting the idea that He died makes the study of the New Testament a foolish waste of time.

It's certainly possibly imho that one or more of his disciples helped facilitate his revival or any other agent of God.

Sure. An agent of God such as the Holy Spirit could do that. But most of the disciples were afraid to show their faces. Nor did they know how to do such things. To suggest that they did is to indulge in fantasy.

Just out of interest what do you believe in regards to who the resurrected Jesus was. Was he:

1. The original Jesus with the original physical body that had been revived and restored physically albeit still with the old wounds?

Yes. Even the wounds might have healed over time, though I'm not sure. The references to His wounds stopped after the 8th day.

2. A completely new creation of God, a new being of spirit that reflected greatly the former physical image of Jesus?

No, since that in no way would entail a "resurrection". Remember that
[1Co 15:3 KJV] ... Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
[1Co 15:4 KJV] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
"Christ" died and was buried and rose again.

Bearing in mind that in both options the core underlying spiritual essence of Jesus was the same in both cases.

No, it doesn't seem to be the case. If Jesus came in a new body, then there was no resurrection. Jesus, teaching about the resurrection of people in the last days, said that
[Jhn 5:28b-29a KJV] ... all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth...

In other words did Jesus receive a new physical body or was his spiritual essence re-inserted into his old body?

The body was resurrected, but in a way that it could never die again. But more to the point, the man Jesus was resurrected. The bible talks about people being resurrected, not just bodies.

 

[Clete]

There are two parts of Jesus' point, dealing with 1. His death, and 2. His resurrection.

His laying down of His life is not suicide. He doesn't take His own life, but He goes to His death by other parties willingly. Do you agree so far? Yet He He says he lays it down "of himself". So "of himself" does not mean "at His own hand", as that would be suicide.

I can't imagine anyone taking it to mean suicide but I've seen crazier things than that!

This is compared directly with the next point, that He will take up His life again using the word "power' (or "authority"). Since "power" in the first point doesn't mean He does it at His own hand (suicide), neither is it necessary that He does the second at His own hand. Therefore, you can't use that verse to say that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, but His resurrection, like His death, was at someone else's hand, even though He has "power" to do both. So "power" doesn't mean He kills Himself or raises Himself.

I strongly disagree here. Jesus took up His own life again and thus rose Himself from the grave by His own power.

Of course. One can't very well rise from the dead without being intimately involved. Just like at our resurrection, we won't be mere spectators.

Our resurrection will be something that happens to us by God's power and so it fundamentally different in that respect from what happened with Jesus who rose from the dead by His own power.

This one has more direct wording, but notice that the destruction is not coming from Him, which confirms what I was saying about the other. So this looks more like that he will rise again, that they will see Him standing (raised) again after He dies.

That isn't what the text says. Jesus states pretty plainly that He will raise it up and it goes on to explain that Jesus was talking about His resurrection.

Agreed that they all play a part. Just like Lazarus had to "come forth" when Jesus called him from the grave.

No. Lazarus' resurrection happened to him by Jesus' power, not his own. Jesus was raised by His own power.

Agreed.

 

[Clete]

It's certainly possibly imho that one or more of his disciples helped facilitate his revival or any other agent of God.

The disciples didn't even understand that He was going to rise from the dead! Jesus told them as much but they didn't get it. They didn't even believe that He was going to die, much less rise from the dead and to whatever extent they might have been hopeful of such an eventuality, they didn't know that it had happened until Mary and Martha told them, and Mary and Martha weren't expecting it to happen either because they were shocked when they saw the empty tomb and didn't even immediately recognize Jesus when He addressed them.

So, no! His disciples were not involved in "reviving" Him. That's sacrilegious heresy that only colossally stupid ignoramuses would even suggest much less actually believe.

 

[Derf]

I can't imagine anyone taking it to mean suicide but I've seen crazier things than that!

My point is that if the destroying is done by someone other than Jesus, and Jesus says "I have the power to lay down my life", then the same thing can (and probably should) apply to the resurrection when Jesus says "I have the power to take it up again."

I strongly disagree here. Jesus took up His own life again and thus rose Himself from the grave by His own power.

Can we at least agree that Jesus did not "rose Himself", because "rose" is not a transitive verb? (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.)

But beside that, here are the statements after the fact talking about who raised Jesus from the dead:
[Mat 16:21 KJV] From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. --This shows that both things, his death and his raising, are treated the same grammatically, meaning that He was killed by someone else, and raised by someone else.
The following show that the act was performed by God the Father:
[Act 2:32 KJV] This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
[Act 3:26 KJV] Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
[Act 4:10 KJV] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[Act 5:30 KJV] The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
[Act 13:33 KJV] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he {God} hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
[Rom 4:24 KJV] But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
[Rom 8:11 KJV] But if the Spirit of him {God the Father} that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he {God the Father} that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.--Yes, the Spirit has a part in resurrection, but God does it "by His Spirit", very similarly, I think, to how He gave man life in the first place, by breathing into him the breath of life.
[Rom 10:9 KJV] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God {the Father} hath raised him {Jesus} from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
[2Co 4:14 KJV] Knowing that he {God} which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present [us] with you.--Here Jesus is shown to have a part in our resurrection, but not the part you suggest He had in His own resurrection.
[Gal 1:1 KJV] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who {God the Father} raised him {Jesus} from the dead)
[1Th 1:10 KJV] And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he {God} raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Our resurrection will be something that happens to us by God's power and so it fundamentally different in that respect from what happened with Jesus who rose from the dead by His own power.

Fundamentally different? I don't see that from the scriptures. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it is your understanding of what happened (and what will happen) rather than how scripture describes what happened. I.e., it is an extrapolation from scripture. Jesus was raised by the power of God, and we will be raised by the power of God. Those things are not fundamentally different.
Here's another resurrection verse that might show how some part of the resurrection happens:
[Rev 11:11 KJV] And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
The "Spirit of life from God" entered "them". This is very similar to the breath of life God breathed into Adam.

Here's another possible resurrection:
[Act 14:19 KJV] And there came thither [certain] Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew [him] out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
[Act 14:20 KJV] Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
In this case, Paul "rose up". If he died (the text is not clear that he did), or if he didn't die, still he rose up. You could say, then, that Paul raised himself (his earthly temple), by getting up. Jesus might very well have been saying the same thing in John 2:19. He will raise up the destroyed temple (His body) when He is given life again from His Father.
[Jhn 2:19 KJV] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it (his earthly temple) up.

Here are 2 verses that talk about His resurrection from Jesus' point of view:
[Mat 27:63 KJV] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[Mar 8:31 KJV] And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
[Mar 9:31 KJV] For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
[Mar 10:34 KJV] And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
[Mar 12:25 KJV] For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
He says He will "rise" again. But that last one is not talking about Jesus, rather about those in the resurrection. They also will "rise from the dead". This is not language that says the people that rise from the dead are raising themselves, even in the words Jesus spoke.

That isn't what the text says. Jesus states pretty plainly that He will raise it up and it goes on to explain that Jesus was talking about His resurrection.

But what is "it"? Isn't it "the temple" by which Jesus means His body? But the verses above do not specify Jesus' body, but Jesus Himself. I think we both agree that Jesus is more than His body/earthly temple, and when a person dies, there's more to it than just a body dying. If Jesus' body were the only focus, then would it make sense to say the "He" was "in the grave"? Wasn't He elsewhere while His body/temple was in the grave for 3 days?

No. Lazarus' resurrection happened to him by Jesus' power, not his own. Jesus was raised by His own power.

So let's look at the grammar of that episode:
[Jhn 12:1 KJV] Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he {Jesus} raised from the dead.
This one obviously shows Jesus' power to raise someone from the dead. But the phraseology is like all the other ones I quoted above where God raised Jesus, not Jesus raised Himself. I haven't found any verses that actually say "Jesus raised Himself from the dead."

FInally, here are some verses from Revelation:
[Rev 1:5 KJV] And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,--We don't usually "beget" ourselves the first time, nor can we beget ourselves from the dead. "Begat" is also a transitive verb, and it is never used in a way that one begets himself.
[Rev 1:18 KJV] I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. --another where Jesus talks about His resurrection, but not that He accomplished the raising Himself. Yet He will be able to accomplish our raising.
[Rev 3:21 KJV] To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.--This one compares the way Jesus overcame (which must be in no small part talking about His overcoming death), and those that overcometh do so in the same way: "even as I also overcame". Yet neither of us thinks we will be raising ourselves from the dead.

This isn't a big deal, but it is a curious thing to me. So I'm happy to stay in lockstep with you on the main subject.

 

[Clete]

My point is that if the destroying is done by someone other than Jesus, and Jesus says "I have the power to lay down my life", then the same thing can (and probably should) apply to the resurrection when Jesus says "I have the power to take it up again."

I understand your point and am telling you that it doesn't follow.

Who raised the dead other that God Himself? Who is Jesus other than God Himself?

Further, Jesus Himself stated "“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Who is the "I" in that sentence other than Jesus?

Can we at least agree that Jesus did not "rose Himself", because "rose" is not a transitive verb? (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.)

Yes! We can agree on that!

Still recovering from my public school education!

But beside that, here are the statements after the fact talking about who raised Jesus from the dead:
[Mat 16:21 KJV] From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. --This shows that both things, his death and his raising, are treated the same grammatically, meaning that He was killed by someone else, and raised by someone else.
The following show that the act was performed by God the Father:
[Act 2:32 KJV] This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
[Act 3:26 KJV] Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
[Act 4:10 KJV] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[Act 5:30 KJV] The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
[Act 13:33 KJV] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he {God} hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
[Rom 4:24 KJV] But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
[Rom 8:11 KJV] But if the Spirit of him {God the Father} that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he {God the Father} that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.--Yes, the Spirit has a part in resurrection, but God does it "by His Spirit", very similarly, I think, to how He gave man life in the first place, by breathing into him the breath of life.
[Rom 10:9 KJV] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God {the Father} hath raised him {Jesus} from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
[2Co 4:14 KJV] Knowing that he {God} which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present [us] with you.--Here Jesus is shown to have a part in our resurrection, but not the part you suggest He had in His own resurrection.
[Gal 1:1 KJV] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who {God the Father} raised him {Jesus} from the dead)
[1Th 1:10 KJV] And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he {God} raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

I've already stated that all three members of the Trinity were directly involved in Christ's resurrection. Indeed, it is one of the strongest arguments for not only the existence of the Trinity but also for the divinity of Christ.

In other words, the idea that God the Father raised Jesus or that Jesus rose by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11 and elsewhere) are not contradictory to the notion that Jesus took up His own life again. If anything they're complimentary.

Fundamentally different? I don't see that from the scriptures. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it is your understanding of what happened (and what will happen) rather than how scripture describes what happened. I.e., it is an extrapolation from scripture. Jesus was raised by the power of God, and we will be raised by the power of God. Those things are not fundamentally different.

The way in which it is fundamentally different is in the fact that Jesus is God! God died and God raised Himself from the dead.

Here's another resurrection verse that might show how some part of the resurrection happens:
[Rev 11:11 KJV] And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
The "Spirit of life from God" entered "them". This is very similar to the breath of life God breathed into Adam.

Very very similar. "Spirit" and "Breath" are the same word in Hebrew.

Here's another possible resurrection:
[Act 14:19 KJV] And there came thither [certain] Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew [him] out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
[Act 14:20 KJV] Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
In this case, Paul "rose up". If he died (the text is not clear that he did), or if he didn't die, still he rose up. You could say, then, that Paul raised himself (his earthly temple), by getting up. Jesus might very well have been saying the same thing in John 2:19. He will raise up the destroyed temple (His body) when He is given life again from His Father.
[Jhn 2:19 KJV] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it (his earthly temple) up.

Here are 2 verses that talk about His resurrection from Jesus' point of view:
[Mat 27:63 KJV] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[Mar 8:31 KJV] And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
[Mar 9:31 KJV] For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
[Mar 10:34 KJV] And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
[Mar 12:25 KJV] For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
He says He will "rise" again. But that last one is not talking about Jesus, rather about those in the resurrection. They also will "rise from the dead". This is not language that says the people that rise from the dead are raising themselves, even in the words Jesus spoke.

But what is "it"? Isn't it "the temple" by which Jesus means His body? But the verses above do not specify Jesus' body, but Jesus Himself. I think we both agree that Jesus is more than His body/earthly temple, and when a person dies, there's more to it than just a body dying. If Jesus' body were the only focus, then would it make sense to say the "He" was "in the grave"? Wasn't He elsewhere while His body/temple was in the grave for 3 days?

Death is a separation. When one's spirit separates from your body, this is physical death. When one's spirit is separated from God, this is spiritual death. Jesus died in both ways. Jesus is God and so the sense in which He died spiritually is in respect to His separation from the Father (Matthew 27:46). And so, the answer to your question is, yes, Jesus was elsewhere while His body was in the grave. It seems clear that Jesus was in what He called "Paradise" and what is called elsewhere "Abraham's bosom", which was the place of the righteous dead where they waited for the redemption of Christ's victory over sin and death before they could be ushered into God's presence.

So let's look at the grammar of that episode:
[Jhn 12:1 KJV] Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he {Jesus} raised from the dead.
This one obviously shows Jesus' power to raise someone from the dead. But the phraseology is like all the other ones I quoted above where God raised Jesus, not Jesus raised Himself. I haven't found any verses that actually say "Jesus raised Himself from the dead."

You just quoted such verses! Is that not explicitly what Jesus says in John 2:19, not to mention John 10:17-18.

FInally, here are some verses from Revelation:
[Rev 1:5 KJV] And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,--We don't usually "beget" ourselves the first time, nor can we beget ourselves from the dead. "Begat" is also a transitive verb, and it is never used in a way that one begets himself.
[Rev 1:18 KJV] I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. --another where Jesus talks about His resurrection, but not that He accomplished the raising Himself. Yet He will be able to accomplish our raising.
[Rev 3:21 KJV] To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.--This one compares the way Jesus overcame (which must be in no small part talking about His overcoming death), and those that overcometh do so in the same way: "even as I also overcame". Yet neither of us thinks we will be raising ourselves from the dead.

Again, the notion that God (the Father) raised Christ or that Christ was raise by the Holy Spirit are complimentary rather than contradictory to the equally true fact that Jesus took up His own life again raised Himself from the grave. They are all three equally God, the Three are One!

This isn't a big deal, but it is a curious thing to me. So I'm happy to stay in lockstep with you on the main subject.

I don't even remember what the main subject is!

 

[Nick M]

Calvinism is not a doctrine in opposition to the Open View. It is a false gospel. I still have a file with a Word document from things people said here. Because they lied and said they didn't say it. The links are gone with the server change, but what they said is grossly perverted. One said he did not believe, God made him believe.

 

[Clete]

Calvinism is not a doctrine in opposition to the Open View. It is a false gospel. I still have a file with a Word document from things people said here. Because they lied and said they didn't say it. The links are gone with the server change, but what they said is grossly perverted. One said he did not believe, God made him believe.

There are lots of Calvinists that I'd have to agree with you who have believed a false gospel. A fairly large percentage of Calvinists who show up on web forums such as this definitely fall into that category but I don't think it's safe to say that the average pew sitting Christian at a Calvinist church has made the same error.

This is a major, if not the primary reason why I started the thread about the gospel proper several years ago. I am fully persuaded that regardless of what errors one buys into, no matter how far afield the rest of one's doctrine gets, if you believe the following things then you believe the gospel and you will be saved.....

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

Now, even as basic as that is, each point can be picked apart and parsed and different people can mean different things even with the use of the same words and so the final judgement is, obviously, up to God who sees the heart, but I have little doubt that the overwhelming majority of Calvinists affirm all of the above point of doctrine.

 

[Nick M]

I don't think bad theology condemns anyone, no matter how badly they don't rightly divide the word of truth. But self righteousness does. Or some other false gospel. We know what Paul said about adding to his gospel. An example would be Ray Comfort and his street interviews in one of the worst places in America, southern California. I assume you have seen it. He uses the law as you should. It is Holy and good, and it reveals your sin and brings death. He preaches Christ crucified, in your place. Yet he never shows 1 Corinthians 15, but quotes early Acts. I truly think it is ok, as the important thing is presented. He even has a video stating he used to preach the false gospel of "asking Jesus into your heart", as it does not save. Only the cross, which is foolishness to those who are perishing. He clearly isn't a Calvinist, but is saved, and is trying to keep people from hell.

 

[Clete]

I don't think bad theology condemns anyone, no matter how badly they don't rightly divide the word of truth. But self righteousness does. Or some other false gospel. We know what Paul said about adding to his gospel. An example would be Ray Comfort and his street interviews in one of the worst places in America, southern California. I assume you have seen it. He uses the law as you should. It is Holy and good, and it reveals your sin and brings death. He preaches Christ crucified, in your place. Yet he never shows 1 Corinthians 15, but quotes early Acts. I truly think it is ok, as the important thing is presented. He even has a video stating he used to preach the false gospel of "asking Jesus into your heart", as it does not save. Only the cross, which is foolishness to those who are perishing. He clearly isn't a Calvinist, but is saved, and is trying to keep people from hell.

I mostly agree. Lots of people who get saved hobble their spiritual growth by thinking that they have to follow a bunch of rules to grow their relationship with God and to maintain it. These folks can get quite self-righteous to the point of being obnoxiously legalistic. Church of Christ folks and Church of God folks come to mind. Others hobble their Christian walk by resigning themselves to the "fact" that God is "in control" and have "the future in His hands" (a reference to divine "sovereignty" and predestination. I frankly don't understand why any Calvinist would bother praying at all and yet many, probably most of them are still saved because they really do believe that Christ died for them and that He rose the dead.

1 Corinthians 3:12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

 

[Nick M]

1 Corinthians 3:12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Oh look, purgatory.

/S

 

[Derf]

I mostly agree. Lots of people who get saved hobble their spiritual growth by thinking that they have to follow a bunch of rules to grow their relationship with God and to maintain it. These folks can get quite self-righteous to the point of being obnoxiously legalistic. Church of Christ folks and Church of God folks come to mind. Others hobble their Christian walk by resigning themselves to the "fact" that God is "in control" and have "the future in His hands" (a reference to divine "sovereignty" and predestination. I frankly don't understand why any Calvinist would bother praying at all and yet many, probably most of them are still saved because they really do believe that Christ died for them and that He rose the dead.

1 Corinthians 3:12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Calvinists have to live their lives as if Calvinism isn't true. So why is it necessary to them?

 

[Clete]

Calvinists have to live their lives as if Calvinism isn't true. So why is it necessary to them?

The simplest answer is because they've convinced themselves that a God who can change at all isn't God. Their entire system flows logically from that single premise. In their minds, if everything isn't predestined, there is no God. That's a pretty tough wall to get over.

 

[Nick M]

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The correct response for all of those that are false is that it doesn't mean what it says. Every theological debate comes down to that premise.

 

[Clete]

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The correct response for all of those that are false is that it doesn't mean what it says. Every theological debate comes down to that premise.

It really is true that one of the most important premises upon which Open Theism is based is the practice of letting the bible say what it actually says and then formulating our doctrine on that. Everyone else does it the other way around, to one degree or another.

 

[Nick M]

This one is for "The Holy See", but for the religion of Christianity too.