Happy Easter!
Kraichgauer wrote:
kxmode wrote:
Can someone point me to one scripture where Jesus, or his apostles, clearly said to celebrate Jesus' resurrection?
It doesn't - but neither does it say we shouldn't. Christ and his Apostles did say, though, that we believers need to avoid legalism. And I would think that avoiding everything that Christ didn't explicitly command constitutes legalism.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well put.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
kxmode wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It doesn't - but neither does it say we shouldn't. Christ and his Apostles did say, though, that we believers need to avoid legalism. And I would think that avoiding everything that Christ didn't explicitly command constitutes legalism.
Jesus also said, "God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." (John 4:24) It has been well researched that Easter comes from pagan origins. Where is the "truth" in a custom whose origins are blatantly false and against everything Jesus taught his followers?
I answer this in my first post on page 1 of this thread.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
Kraichgauer wrote:
kxmode wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Because nobody today is worshiping pagan gods while celebrating Easter. They are remembering Christ's resurrection for mankind's salvation. When my family and I attended Easter sunrise service this morning, none of us were praying to Pre-Christian deities.
You cannot build a foundation of faith on doctrines whose origins are steep in pagan customs! This would be like building on a foundation riddled with cracks and damage. The foundation of Easter is ultimately flawed. This is why Jesus said we must worship God in spirit and truth otherwise if left to human imperfect and under Satan's control (1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4) God would be worshiped in improper ways. In his word the bible he tells us exactly how he is to be worship; and contrary to what is taught Jesus is not Almighty God. Jesus is a god in that he is divine, but he is simply God's son, the firstborn of all creation as Colossians 1:15 states. Jesus had a beginning, whereas Almighty God Jehovah had no beginning. (Revelation 1:8, 22:13; Isaiah 48:12)
You and your church can believe that as much as you want, but I will never deviate from believing that Christ was both the Son of God, and God. And I believe that that is what was believed by the church from the very beginning.
As for Christ having no existence prior to his human birth, or that there were any questions about his Godhood, you may want to check out: John 1, verses 1 through 5. I think John is very explicit here.
And Micah 5:2
Quote:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You and your church can believe that as much as you want, but I will never deviate from believing that Christ was both the Son of God, and God.
Are you implying that God took a dump once a day? And if so, was the product thereof Holy Sh*t?
ruveyn
I don't think El La would do such a thing
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You and your church can believe that as much as you want, but I will never deviate from believing that Christ was both the Son of God, and God.
Are you implying that God took a dump once a day? And if so, was the product thereof Holy Sh*t?
ruveyn
As much as I hate to side with Theology on anything, this isn't actually as far-fetched as you might think in terms of logic. It takes a bit of brain-bending, but I think I can Nerd Out and explain it by making a comparison to Changeling: the Lost. Pay close attention, this gets a little hairy:
If someone wants to believe that Christ was both God and his own son, you can think of God as being like the True Fae. The True Fae's essential nature is a sapient facet of reality; anything that exists physically or as an ideal might have a True Fae that doesn't represent it so much as it is its placeholder in a sort of universal tapestry of connection (known as the Wyrd). A True Fae's 'true form' is its Name, upon which the various Oaths and Contracts that comprise its 'physical form' hang and rest (I'm simplifying here, incidentally). True Fae, however, don't just rest on their Name; they grant and take Titles from each other that represent refinements of these Wyrd-born concepts, places in the 'tapestry' for the Fae to have authority over. In order to survive, they conflict with each other by distilling their natural omnipotence into deliberately limited forms and playing out grand games of legend and myth.
When a True Fae wants to do this, they invest one of their Titles into a form and place it within a story against one or more other Fae or mortals. If they 'win', they gain additional Titles; if they lose, they lose the one they risked. Where this gets important is one particular manifestation of Title - an Actor, which is where the Christ comparison comes in. An Actor is both like and more than a hand; like a hand, it is wholly a part of the True Fae that created it, and its 'master' is entirely aware of what the Actor is doing, whereas the Actor may not even be truly aware of its greater nature. Unlike a hand, though, an Actor has significant free will, and while the True Fae that creates it determines its nature (as limited by the Title that gives it form) it cannot determine its actions - the Actor acts and chooses independently, and the only way a True Fae can affect it once it's loose is to recall it, reclaiming the Title for further use (usually done after claiming victory in a Legend).
You could choose to view Christ the same way; a deliberate limitation on God's (the True Fae) omnipotence. He would be God's son in the sense that he was created/sired by God, but also as a part of God by virtue of being, essentially, a free-willed limb set on a task in the name of his master.
And that's been my two cents. I return now to opposing theology in all ways.
_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You and your church can believe that as much as you want, but I will never deviate from believing that Christ was both the Son of God, and God.
Are you implying that God took a dump once a day? And if so, was the product thereof Holy Sh*t?
ruveyn
Of course I am, as I believe Christ was every bit human as he was God.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You and your church can believe that as much as you want, but I will never deviate from believing that Christ was both the Son of God, and God.
Are you implying that God took a dump once a day? And if so, was the product thereof Holy Sh*t?
ruveyn
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
kxmode wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Who was present when the stone was rolled away?
Only the Jewish soldiers were present when the stone was rolled away. The chief priests and Pharisees told Pilate, “Sir, we have called to mind that that impostor said while yet alive, ‘After three days I am to be raised up.'" (Matthew 27:63) Pilate was obviously disgusted with these religious leaders in his reply, "YOU have a guard. Go make it as secure as YOU know how." (Matthew 27:65, 28:11) As Luke 24:1 and Mark 16:1 reports very early that morning Mary Magdalene, Mary (Jesus' mother) and Salome came to the tomb bearing spices and discovered the stone had been rolled away. But they were not present when it happened.
blauSamstag wrote:
Who found the body missing?
Peter.
Sure about that? Matthew 28 implies that mary and mary were present, and discovered that Jesus' body was missing.
And John 20 implies that Simon, Peter, and a third, unnamed disciple found the body missing.
I could go on, but I'm sure you know where i'm going with this, and have done the research yourself. This story is told 3 times in the bible, and the stories don't match up.
On one hand, eye-witness reports are notoriously fallible, and it's normal and expected for three reports of the same event to diverge greatly.
On the other hand, without the resurrection, Jesus of Nazareth is just another traveling sorcerer, of which there were many in old Judea, and many which were crucified.
Considering how long after his departure from this plane his following really got going, he could even be an amalgamation, a "greatest hits" of messiahs, both self-proclaimed and widely presumed, who were all long gone by the time this whole bible thing really got rolling.
