Who Here Is A True Christian?

"Only an empty tomb," eh ? You reject the one in the empty tomb that said "Jesus had risen".. THAT IS a Resurrection in Mark. You are simply denying that it is there and, it is there.

*sigh* I offered up 4-5 scholarly opinions about this when you brought it up and you rejected it with your own opinion. I will repost them .. Although it should be said that you didn't reject all of them, which leads you,I and everyone back to speculation.

You have 'MrConservative's' post concerning this as you might not have seen it,albeit I have not read through the material yet myself,only glossed over it. It might offer some insight, I do not know.

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...ho-here-true-christian-29.html#post1062368810

Yes, of course I am open to other sources but to clarify, I was talking about for Matthew and Luke's ending. They have the Long Resurrection stories in them and to say that they aren't valid because Mark didn't write the same ending is laughable.

That link supports what Paul wrote about rising to an immortal/Spiritual body. No one here is saying that Jesus rose to another dying body, only that he rose from the dead and "appeared." -

Verb
Come into sight; become visible or noticeable, typically without visible agent or apparent cause: "smoke appeared on the horizon".
Come into existence or use: "the major life forms appeared on earth".

 

If one wishes to sit in the chair of ignorance then then ignorance is ones reward.

I was raised in a devoutly religious family. I have two close relatives that are ministers (Missouri Synod)

My faith however comes from a near death experience.

You seem to feel the need to demonize those who have ideas that conflict with your particular beliefs, rather than confronting the idea.

I am not sure where you learned this but it is a common technique taught by cults to adherents. It is a thought stopping technique.

And here you do it again. "anyone who doesn't agree with us does is blind to the message and will be condemned to hell'

Black vs White, Good vs Evil, God vs Devil ... Cult doctrine is Good, any ideas that conflict with cult doctrine is evil.

Rather than deal with these ideas we preach over them, demonize those who have the ideas and condemn them to hell.

 

"physical resurrection" my good man. The only one in denial is you. There are no physical resurrection stories in the original Mark.

Post links por favor ... There is no dearth of apology of course, but does any of it make sense ?

Here is some scripture that is thought by some scholars to predate Mark for you to ponder.

This scripture claims that the resurrection was spiritual.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/sophia.html

 

There is a "Resurrection" in Mark, you are the one hung up on what you think that is supposed to mean. Did you even read what I wrote ???

It was from wiki, 'Gospel of Mark'.

I'm not into apologetics, I just believe that Jesus raised from the dead and not in some lame way like you are probably thinking, like "he is alive in our hearts" .. No, that wouldn't warrant "all the rave" of a Resurrection.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ supports the Resurrection too, says he "appeared."

 

Who mentioned Hell?

Sounds like a defensive posture that your are assuming not being sure of your salvation..


I've been sitting in the chair resting my 'blessed a$$urance' now for over 30 yrs, and know the difference between playing religion/just being religious and true salvation as in becoming a 'new creation in Christ Jesus,' as per the scriptures.

Looks like you are going to continue 'walking around' the chair inspecting it and be the man referred to in your 'beloved James' as one who will not receive anything from God being double-minded:

James 1:6-9

6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

So continue in playing by your rules without spiritual revelation of the 'reality' of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ; He being both Savior and the 1st of many Sons---but...."to those who believe (intrust, put their faith in)"

NOTE: responding to my post with your 'usual many words' wont change the truths in the scriptures I have been quoting...but I'm sure that it will make you feel superior in your arrogance...btw, if Paul missed it being a fool, maybe you can call another Bible canonization counsel and include 'your writings to straighten out conventional Christianity!....

But, I'll leave you alone, 'Giftedone,' with this one truth in the scriptures: that the greatest enemy between God & man is man's 'pride.'

 

What did you mean by "perishing" , my apologies if this does not mean "hell".

Regardless, I was speaking of cult mind control techniques in general. No necessarily about your specific belief system.

So let me get this straight.

1) The reason I choose to question things because I am not sure of my salvation.
2) You are 100% sure that your doctrine is the only correct one and because some of my ideas conflict with yours that I am just a pretender.

OD - Do you not see how many times you have defaulted to this automatic position ? Rather than deal with the idea that conflicts your belief you demonize the messenger.

If you do not question and believe everything that is soon fed by man, then how do you know the difference between a false prophet and a the true message of Christ ?

Do you think the devil is going to show up with red skin, pointy ears and a tail ?

 

Where have "I" demonized you? Again, deflecting and victimizing yourself.

Another cheap cop out in your effort to deflect from the truths as I have been discussing----sounds like the Saul Alinksky playbook!


As Jesus said,

Matthew 10:34

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

And the Word of God is as a 'sword,'

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

The Word as a sword cuts with truth and exposes what is under the surface...

And so dont blame this 'messenger,' but the sword of the Word which he is 'wielding!'

The 2-edged sword of the Word of God can both 'comfort the afflicted,' and as well "afflict the comfortable.'

Jesus came for 3 purposes:
1) To manifest the Word of God
2) To die on the cross for sin as our substitute as being the 'eternal' Lamb of God
3) To rise again as He said, "I AM the resurrection."

Even if one doesnt accept the 'Trinity' they MUST believe in His mission---the resurrection included.

If YOU dont, then per the scripture, "By YOUR words YOU will be justified; and by YOUR words YOU will be condemned,"

Your 'technique' of accusing everyone as being part of a cult or demonizing those who dont believe as you in your 'gnostic enlightenment,' and are therefore in rebellion and opposed to traditional & accepted Christianity, is all too common and is the usual cheap shot verbiage of an unbeliever directed towards those who believe in the 'full Gospel' of Jesus Christ..

 

I did read what you wrote and I agree that a resurrection is spoken of in Mark but it is inferred. Mary has a vision/sees an angel and the tomb is empty.

The reader is left to guess what happened to Jesus. "Was it a spiritual resurrection in heaven" and so on.

This is completely different than the accounts in Matt and Luke is physically present with the disciples prior to ascending into heaven.

OK .. so it is not really from "scholars". Anyone can put anything into wiki.

I believe in the afterlife, resurrection after death and so forth. I also believe that part of the reason for us being here is to search for the truth and to seek wisdom.

The question here is did Jesus really show up in the flesh and hang out with the disciples after death.

We have conflicting accounts and conflicting information.

The Sophia account is a spiritual resurrection.

 

I think I must have hit a nerve.

Perhaps revisiting the past couple of posts will clear things up.

In the above post I point out that the physical resurrection idea has many flaws and point out some alternate scripture.

Rather than respond to the information presented you attack the messenger.

All you do here is state that I do not have real faith and am operating out of foolishness.

This is Demonizing the messenger rather than responding to or refuting the message.

More demonization. Rather than respond to the content of my post you claim that I am prideful, arrogant, and unsure of my own salvation.

If your only defense to a message that conflicts with your beliefs is to deflect away from the message by attaking the messenger, then perhaps you should reconsider the foundation for your beliefs.

Jesus says to build your foundation on something solid.

If the only defense to your position is ad hom .. (attacking the person rather than the premise) then your foundation is built on fallacy.

 

What nerve?! The sensitivity is on YOUR end, as I'm quoting applicable scripture and you are deflecting my words for your benefit...how cheap!

Where are your responses to 'most' of my last post..or do you pick & chose your portions that support your 'self-victimization?'

How sad that you screen out all that conflicts with your version of Christianity.

An NDE doesnt disavow the Word of God as I also have a personal anecdote which is wasted on this forum as being unacceptable testimony & 'proof!'

But you are never at a loss for words to deflect, accuse, and take the responsibility off of yourself... And so I could be here trying to 'wake you up' til kingdom come and you would still be your stubborn rebellious 'goat' self....go about your folly.

 

It is not inferred, the one in the tomb said that Jesus had risen as he said he would. It wasn't just an empty tomb as you say.

Not left to guess if he raised from the dead. You are only left to guess about what kind of Resurrection because you are adding into this from disbelief.

That isn't completely different, it's called more information ..

Sure, but it goes to show that others have speculated just as yourself.

According to what I have read,Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit". The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body.

But,No, I don't think that is the question here. The question here is do you really know what you believe about life after death or are you really still on the undecided trip.

Eh, not necessarily.

Do tell what that is exactly ..

 

LOL yup .. definitely a nerve !

 

As it has been said, a picture is worth a 1000 words..

I'm out to enjoy the day..where most likely you will be here justifying your rebellion....

 

There is no eye witness account of a "physical resurrection" in Mark. All we have is vision of an angel stating Jesus has risen.

This is completely different than saying that Jesus came by in the flesh, we talked, drank some wine, ate some bread and then he ascended into heaven.

Of course it is more information in Matt and Luke. A whole lot more information that was added later and that which completely changes the story and the weight of the evidence.

Some stories tell of a physical resurrection (such as in Matt and Luke) where the physical body of Jesus interacted with the disciples. Other stories such as Mark and Sophia do not have a physical resurrection.

 

Mark is not an eyewitness to anything. Matthew and Luke simply expound on Marks version and add things they think he left out....they all copied from Mark. Sophia speaks of this jesus appearing to them and not a physical resurrection.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html

 

"Vision of an angel ?" lol No sorry there guy, not it Mark. As far as there being "no eye witness account in Mark" may or may not be true. We would have to assume the man in the empty tomb didn't see Jesus alive before proclaiming he had risen.

No, it is called more information in the other Gospels,hence the "longer ending." Calling this information "added later" isn't applicable because it wasn't added later in the other Gospels, it was considered more information from another source.

No reason to think that Mark's wasn't a physical Resurrection. In fact, Sophia say "but only pure, perfect flesh" so I can't help but to think that what I wrote was quite a nice conclusion.

I don't know why you fight it. A resurrection is a resurrection. You might TRY and explain what you think a Spiritual resurrection is so that we don't argue around in circles.

 

If you take all of the words or allusions, to "hell" in the Bible, and the circumstances that surround each, it comes across, at least in my opinion, as a place of darkness, eternal, and torment that I wouldn't want to be associated with. What say you, have you studied all of these passages?

 

So what is one to conclude? Mark wasn't there and didn't know? Or Mark is not the author?

- - - Updated - - -

I have not studied the passages. But I default to the chosen peoples interpretation and rule out torment. Eternal, yes.

 

If you default to other peoples interpretations then you're subject to "sway with any wind of doctrine". Why not study it yourself? Consult as many opinions as you can, especially those that you don't agree with. It is eternity that we're talking about, so would you rather be right or wrong, for all of eternity? At least, right or wrong you honestly tried. I would hate to spend an eternity in a terrible place knowing I could have thwarted it by just researching it for myself. Researching is really rather easy.

 

One is to conclude a Resurrection.

Giftedone posted a Gnostic text and said it was supposedly older than Mark. If this is true then how are we to explain that even they included a longer ending than Mark but whoever wrote Mark didn't know ? It doesn't make sense to me to assume that Mark didn't know but rather go by what is written in his Gospel.


..

 

A spiritual resurrection means that there was no physical body wandering around after death, eating drinking and conversing with people.

Sophia does not say Jesus appeared in the flesh. It says in invisible spirit... a great angel of light.

The flesh part is describing that mortal flesh could not endure it, only perfect flesh which is apparently something Jesus taught about.

It is true that Matt an Luke give "more information"

The question remains as to why Mark did not give any information on the physical resurrection. The most logical answer is that the writer of Mark did not know.

 

Not physical,eh ? Is the Resurrection supposed to exclude the physical, or glorify it with immortality? Did you see the other quote -

..

 

..and it says "But his resemblance I must not describe."

Sure, and it's something that Paul taught about too. It's called a glorified, immortal body which so happens to be along the lines of "pure,perfect flesh."

I am fine with your speculation thought I completely disagree with that being the only logical answer.

..

 

This question is for the 'Giftedone,' who is a strict proponent of 'faith by works.'
As a believer in Christ, during this Lent' season leading up to the celebration of the crucifixion and 'supposed' bodily resurrection of their Savior, Jesus Christ, what are YOU doing as far as YOUR works to honor Him and His sacrifice? Scripture does say that 'we' need to identify with His sufferings'

In many places in S. America, some are 'self-flogging' themselves and even having themselves nailed to a cross.

What are the 'works' of your salvation to justify YOU as being a 'saved' person? I'm sure that being a 'works' believer, that you are also heavily involved with those who are demonstrating their faith!!

Or, are you all vain words and no works?!

 

On a side note,I think it's important not to leave out words, to say he appeared in invisible Spirit would mean that no one saw him which would contradict the rest of that whole paragraph. But to say he appeared in "THE invisible Spirit is different because the Spirit is known to be invisible, that is, unless it appears.