KalNet Message Board

Personally, I think that his teachings would have been just as strong without the ressurection (But thats mostly personal interpretation). The general gist of all of Jesus' teachings were that:

1. You did not need to go to through someone else to speak to God
2. Its not the icon thats the most important, but you're own personal relationship with God.

Now, when Mary went to the tomb to pay her respects to christ and annoint the body (Please correct me if im wrong, I dont have a Bible handy for clarification on this one) it was not there. The angel said that his body had been taken by the lord. Now does that not exemplify his previous teachings? One does not need an idol to speak to god, but only their own ideas and beliefs. Jesus, did teach that the church was important, (moneychangers in the temple etc..), but more that it should be given the respect it was due and treated as the house of god that it was.

[Please note, the following is only my own speculation and has little to no research to back it just yet, I plan to look into it more during the summer if I have time]

The ressurection, if I remember correctly, was added later to the Bible (This may be my memory playing games with me, but I remember reading this somewhere). It shows a falling back on the old beliefs of needing idols and figureheads in the church for worship.


Like I said earlier, most of this is just the beginnings of ideas that havent been completely looked into or fleshed out yet so be gentle

Read it in parts. Take a coffee break between each number or your head'll explode


#1
Well, if we're gonna talk about it, here are the summaries of what I know resurrection-wise:

-6th to 9th hour darkness over the land
-Jesus cries out "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabach-thani?"
-people say he's calling out to Elijah
-sponge with vinegar offered
-people say to leave him alone and see if Elijah rescues him (they most likely misunderstood the Eloi part as it was thought Elijah would save people in time of great need; thus, the wait and see attitude)
-Jesus gives up his spirit with a loud cry saying "Father, into your hands I commit your spirit........it is finished" and dies
-at that moment, curtain of the temple torn in two (showing the end to the old Hebrew mediator ways), earthquake, rocks split, bodies of holy people raised to life, and the centurion says "Surely this man was the Son of God"
-people beat their chests in anguish and the ladies mentioned later watch from afar
-Sabbath coming up so Jews ask Pilate to take down bodies. Other guys legs busted to kill 'em faster, Christ's were left intact because He was all ready dead. However, His side is pierced by a spear (giving us our Wolfenstein sequel ) and blood and water flow out.
-Joseph of Arimathea (accompanied by Nicodemus) asks Pilate for the body of Jesus. Pilate asks the centurion if He's dead, he says that He is, and Joseph gets the body. He wraps it in clean linen cloth, puts on some of the burial spices, places Him in his new rock tomb, rolls a big stone in front of it, and goes away. Mary the mother of James (not Christ's brother James) and Mary Magdalene sit there and watch the process.
-day after Preparation day, Pharisees tell Pilate to put up guards around the tomb to prevent 3 day prophecy by Christ Himself (Mt. 16:21). Pharisees put a seal on the door and place the guards.
-Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (not Christ's mother--she was probably staying with John), Joanna, and "the others with them who told this to the apostles." The others being Susanna and others as outlined in Luke 8:1-3. Anyhoo, they're gonna go to the tomb and put on more spices to finish the burial procedure (it was done in a hurry due to the Sabbath)
-they wonder who's gonna roll the stone away (easy to set, hard to open........gravity can be a pain sometimes )
-angel coming down causes an earthquake, rolls away stone, gives the woman the message (Mt. 28:5-7), they see tomb is empty, Jesus appears and tells them to go, they run back to tell the disciples that Jesus is gone, John beats Peter to the tomb running, they see tomb is empty, everybody leaves except Mary Magdalene, Jesus appears to her, she doesn't recognize Him at first, He tells her to tell the disciples He'll visit them.
-guards bribed to tell disciples stole Christ
-appearances
-Great Commissions and the ascension

Mt. 27:48-66, Mt. 28:1-20, Mark 15:33-47, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 23:44-56, Luke 24:1-53, John 19:28-42, John 20 -21:25



#2
I think the general gist of Jesus' teachings were this:

1). "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment."
2). "And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the Laws and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Mt. 22:37-40

#3

Both the need to go through someone else and the icons were abolished because Christ became our mediator directly to God and He was the ultimate sacrifice so we no longer need any. He didn't preach so much on those subjects--He preached love (feeding people, healing people, how to interact with people, etc.).

Yes, the church is important, but it's not really about the building. See all the various references Christ made to the church as his bride. The people are the church, not the building. Jesus got mad in the temple because the people had forgotten that the temple was there so that they could have a place to have a relationship with God. They had made it a place of business instead of a place of worship.



#4

I think you're wrong on the resurrection being added. The resurrection was needed to fulfill Ps. 16:10. If Christ didn't fulfill all the requirements of the Old Testament, He wouldn't have been the Messiah. That's the whole basis of the debate between Judaism and Christianity (Jews say He didn't fulfill 'em and vice versa). Christ's resurrection was also essentially in the fact that if He were dead, so would our faith be dead. Sin would have triumphed. Christ needed to rise for us to have a reason to believe in Him. If He didn't arise, the sin of the world He took on would have beaten Him. The resurrection shows the triumph over sin. The resurrection being "added" seems to be the Pharisees' plot successfully convincing someone.

Without the resurrection it all would have just been suggestions and a bunch of touchy-feely advice. His resurrection cemented the fact that He triumphed over sin and was part of the 3 in 1.

If I was gonna believe in some dude who said a bunch of stuff and then died never to return, I woulda picked Stalin, Lenin, Chi, or some other guy. It woulda made my life a lot simpler. Listen to a bunch of uplifting sayings and then go on a violent spree for $hits and giggles. The whole love thing can be a real pain in the @$$. Yet another reason I should have been a jew...........but I digress.


#5

Christ always said that there was a head of the church. See the story about the grape vines in John 15:1. God is the gardener (head honcho), Christ the vine (our relation to the gardener), and the people the branches (we bear fruit for the gardener). Those who don't are trimmed; those that do are pruned.

If you're trying to show that Christ promoted a lack of organization in the church you may wanna look at Philipians 1:1, 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Timothy 3. Elders and deacons are layed out pretty good.


#6

When ya flesh out the ideas, I'd like to hear 'em. I try to give everyone a chance to air out their ideas on things. It sometimes leaves me up 'til 5 in the morning answering, but whatever I might disagree, but I like hearing other people's ideas.



Heavy discussions suck when you're tired. Excuse any spelling mistakes, etc. Point 'em out and I'll correct 'em. G'night.

ok Mel Gibson didn't go into great detail on the reserection of Jesus but they do show that three days after his death he rose again. The movie ends after the stone was moved from over the opening of the hole to the cave.

Nooo! You just ruined the ending! And I was gonna go see it too!

the resurection is 10 seconds long.. and it did not fit the movie at all.. the screen goes black i am thinking hummm time to go home this movie kicked ass... the bam theres more and it did not fit at all..


I think it had to be there but it felt like they wanted to make a second movie out of it.. felt kind of a cheep ending.. but i understand that the bible says he came back so it had to be there for all the bible readers..

Well, if they at least mentioned it that's all I wanted. I was under the impression they didn't even have that. I'll have to watch it before I make a call as to whether it's a good film, though.

yah its there.. all 10 seconds of it.... thats why some people where leaving the film near the end of it.. good movie but people just dont wanna hear/ see him comming back..

[Fallen]TSB wrote:yah its there.. all 10 seconds of it.... thats why some people where leaving the film near the end of it.. good movie but people just dont wanna hear/ see him comming back..

Well, I guess that's somewhat ironic then seeing as how it was mainly people with a church background going to see it.

I think you're wrong on the resurrection being added. The resurrection was needed to fulfill Ps. 16:10. If Christ didn't fulfill all the requirements of the Old Testament, He wouldn't have been the Messiah. That's the whole basis of the debate between Judaism and Christianity (Jews say He didn't fulfill 'em and vice versa)

Like I said, I havent had the time to properly research everything yet, but I dont think Im wrong with this, at least not entirely. The Bible has been revised MANY times by many people, and the ressurection and accompanying verses could easily have been put in later. I think the major problem is that we both see the bible in different perspectives. You see the religious document, I see interesting historical manuscript to be torn apart and analyzed. Just as a finishing note, the Holy Trinity was created by Constantine and made part of Christianity at the council of Nicea (May be different council, and I need to check the year, but Im 90% on this one), and isnt actually mentioned in the bible at all (This fact I'm fuzzy on, it may just be the old testament its not mentioned in, please correct me if Im wrong), so the chances of the ressurection being added are higher than most would expect.

You can say anything was added to the Bible. You could argue the entire Bible was just some story a guy wrote on an acid trip. That's why faith is part of the requirement for Christianity. If by revised you mean translated then, yes, you're right. The fundamentals have pretty much always been the same, though. That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls were regarded so highly. They showed that. Sure, there's been some minute changes ("Bill walked to the store" instead of "To the store walked Bill"), but the core has always been there. Those in question are often highlighted (see Acts 8:36).

Your probably referring to Mark 16:9-20. Those verses don't seem to fit his writing style. Since John Mark and Peter were both imprisoned in Rome around the same time, some say Peter finished it off or that someone else called on by God (ie. the other apostles) did so. Others say it was lost originally and still others just say the whole theory's on crack.

Actually, I don't see it as a religious document. Otherwise, I'd be doing all the rules in Leviticus because religion insinuates tradition and practices to me. Thankfully, I don't so I can still have sex with women on their period or grow my hair out. Ummm, yay? The Bible is God's Word. Seems like an insignificant statement until you realize it's Him talking to me. Some hear--other's listen. I analyze to better relate the truth I feel the Bible conveys to my life; you seem to analyze for inconsistencies.

If you're looking for a historical document, you may want to look elsewhere. That's not it's purpose. Thus, the Bible isn't a lawyer's handbook, book of science, yellowpages, or history text. It has some of those qualities, but it's not its main purpose. It's here to let us listen to God and better develop our relationship with Him.

The trinity is mentioned throughout the Bible:

Mt. 3:16-17 (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
John 20:17 (Father and Son)
John 20:22 (Holy Spirit)
Acts 2 (Holy Spirit at Pentecost)
Romans 1:7 (Father and Son)
Mark 12:29 (the Lord is one God)

If you still want to argue that the text mentioned above was "tainted" by Constantine, here are some Old Testament references:

Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Lord is one God)

Genesis 1:2 (the Holy Spirit)
Job 33:4 (Holy Spirit)
Ps 104:30 (Holy Spirit)

Isaiah 42:1 (Christ, Holy Spirit, and Father)

Isaiah 7:14 (Jesus our Immanuel)
Hos 11:1 (Jesus when He had to come back from Egypt)


I highly doubt the Jews would allow the changing of the Torah, etc. to accomodate the Christians. The last 2 the Jews feel are unfulfilled; Christians obviously feel differently. The idea of the Trinity also comes from the Spirit putting us into contact with Jesus and Christ putting us into contact with the Father. Constantine at Nicea finalized it when disagreement arouse among some people around the nature of the Trinity. It was talked about again at the Council of Chalcedon. Unitarians still don't believe it.

I heard on the radio that there are rumours that Mel wants to make a second movie, probably about Jesus' last 40 days (after the resurrection).

As for the stuf about the resurrection being untrue, and added later, if it had been added later there would have been a lot of fighting, because (if you haven't noticed throughout history) that there are always disputes when change is made to accepted doctrine and things are changed.

More evidence that Christ's resurrection happened is that there are no written arguments refuting the claim of the deciples. If people know that something isn't true (especially when they don't like it) they argue. There are no records of the pharasies actually arguing that the resurrection didn't happen. You would think that there would be records of such arguments. And I'm not sure on this one, but after the resurrection something like 3000 people saw Jesus. (don't quote me I don't know the numbers for sure)

If by revised you mean translated then, yes, you're right.

No, I mean revised, changed and adapted to suit the times, as all documents of this nature are.

The Bible is God's Word.

Thats a matter of interpretation. I personally (if I were religious) would see it more as man's interpretation of God's word. Since the bible was written by men, the core of the message would be God's word with a very human slant on matters. Course, that, like all religion, is open to interpretation.

f you're looking for a historical document, you may want to look elsewhere. That's not it's purpose. Thus, the Bible isn't a lawyer's handbook, book of science, yellowpages, or history text. It has some of those qualities, but it's not its main purpose. It's here to let us listen to God and better develop our relationship with Him.

I could agree that the new testament is more along those lines, but the old testament is a historical document. A unique one yes, but a one nonetheless. The old testament was a guidline for life, granted through religious practices, but a guildine nonetheless. The old testament sets out to explain that which couldnt be explained (Creation is a major example), and gave rules for food prep (ie Kosher), lifestyle and generally how to be a good person (Various stories about morality and obeying god), as well as the history of the Jewish people themselves. On top of all of this there was religious guidlines and practices as well. So yes, the Bible is an historical document. A very unique and useful one, but like any historical document, its full inconsistencies, and errors that are easily found out.

I analyze to better relate the truth I feel the Bible conveys to my life; you seem to analyze for inconsistencies.

Yes, I do analyze for inconsistencies, but not just them. I dont see the bible as anything more than an historical document, so I dont factor in faith or believe in my analysis, which changes the outcome radically. If I dont analyse for inconsistencies, then I'm allowing for faulty and imcomplete conclusions to be drawn. Picking inconsistencies out of sources is an important skill which I vaule. Of course, most of the debate here is based on personal belief, so really, it wont ever have an end, but it sure is fun and interesting nonethless.

The trinity is mentioned throughout the Bible:

Mt. 3:16-17 (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
John 20:17 (Father and Son)
John 20:22 (Holy Spirit)
Acts 2 (Holy Spirit at Pentecost)
Romans 1:7 (Father and Son)
Mark 12:29 (the Lord is one God)

Yes, the components of the trinity are mentioned (Father, son, holy spirit) are mentioned, but never is the trinity itself referenced as "the holy trinity" and that was what I was referring to. Im trying to find the book that I Have that I dug that tidbit out of, it actually has alot more info on it as well, but I think I left it at home.

I highly doubt the Jews would allow the changing of the Torah, etc. to accomodate the Christians.

For clarification sake (And just cause nit-picking is fun sometimes ) Christians werent christians for some time yet, they were just Jews with differing ideas at the time of Jesus and for some time after. It isnt until 120-150 AD (Thats as clear a date as I can find right now)that christians are referred to as christians. But thats just a minor point and not really significant.

On a final note, you have me at a disadvantage, I lack access to a bible right now, so Im lacking a valuable reference, but I must say, the digging you've done is quite commendable. The debate so far has been thouroughly engrossing. I only wish I had more time to research and investigate my side better.
Carry on.

Ghost [PX] wrote:On a final note, you have me at a disadvantage, I lack access to a bible right now, so Im lacking a valuable reference

You can find any verse, in almost any language here, so no more excuses.

Be that as it may, I find it easier to work from a hard copy, that and I've never been completely trustworthy of online bibles such as that one.

If you want a good source for various translations of the Bible go here:
http://www.e-sword.net/

There are many different translations and languages if you're interested.
It's a free download with a lot of options, so for an easy reference tool you can't beat the price. Look in the downloads section for whatever you want. (including the books from the apocrypha (spelling?))