Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 328 by Justin108]

I did. People do not typically come back from the dead. So why should I believe someone did in this instance?

Have you actually checked the medical records of various hospitals around the world. There are many records of a person coming back from the dead.

Here are a few (note: the medical community prefers to call some of these near death experiences...

Well there you go. A near death experience is not the same as dying and coming back from the dead. If you're suggesting that Jesus had a near death experience, then I could believe that. But then why would I believe Jesus is the son of God if near death experiences happen all the time? What's so special about Jesus?

Thank you for replying to my post.

I would first like to point out that the terminology near death experience was coined by the medical community which had a difficult time explaining people coming back to life after death. Rather than admit these individuals died and came back to life, it was easier to explain it away by saying they almost died. This is what moving the goal post looks like btw.

Nevertheless, I would like to begin by asking at what point is someone considered dead?

Is it when the brain ceases to function?
Is it when the heart ceases to beat?

Even today, we rely on the medical community to determine when a person is truly dead. This same community will declare a person dead, and when the person returns back to life and explains how they left their body, an attempt is made to move the goal post and state the person did not truly die, but was very near.

I am not suggesting that Jesus had a near death experience. Quite the contrary. I am affirming that even today, more than 2000 years later we have accounts of people who were once dead (even confirmed by medical experts) and yet these people coming back to life. There are even accounts of famed and self proclaimed former atheists who state what they witnessed after death. So prior belief cannot be brought up in those instances, but yet the same account as what we read about with Jesus holds true today.

To deny such evidence, is to choose to remain in disbelief which is your God given right. I only advocate that utilizing such a right in this manner is foolish and the results are spelled out all throughout the gospel.

Jesus did not have a near death experience, but instead rose from the dead glorified. The fact that we know the miracle working power of God is still at work today, is evidence that faith in Christ can be built on a firm foundation, and not just empty speech. I pray that the Holy Spirit brings clarity in your heart.

Yours,

[Justin108]

Rather than admit these individuals died and came back to life, it was easier to explain it away by saying they almost died.

"Admit"? This assumes that the people were, in fact, dead. How do you know they were, in fact, dead and not simply almost dead as the medical professionals suggest?

This is what moving the goal post looks like btw.

Medical professionals can't be moving the goalpost because they're not trying to win a debate...

Nevertheless, I would like to begin by asking at what point is someone considered dead?

I don't know. I'm not a medical professional.

I am not suggesting that Jesus had a near death experience. Quite the contrary. I am affirming that even today, more than 2000 years later we have accounts of people who were once dead (even confirmed by medical experts) and yet these people coming back to life.

Ok if people come back to life all the time as you suggest, then what's so special about Jesus?

[KingandPriest]

Rather than admit these individuals died and came back to life, it was easier to explain it away by saying they almost died.

"Admit"? This assumes that the people were, in fact, dead. How do you know they were, in fact, dead and not simply almost dead as the medical professionals suggest?

It was the same medical professionals which declared these individuals dead in the first place. You are comfortable enough to accept their opinion that the persons were almost dead, but ignore their original expert opinion. Why?

Is it a choice of convenience or a changing of facts to fit a certain narrative. If a doctor pronounces a person dead, it is considered a fact that the person is dead. Then if the doctor changes their mind, the "fact" changes to almost dead.

Which fact is true in this instance, the original expert opinion of death, or the second opinion of almost dead?

This is what moving the goal post looks like btw.

Medical professionals can't be moving the goalpost because they're not trying to win a debate...

I disagree. Doctors have a plethora of reasons to shift the goalposts. The control big pharma has in the medical industry. The money hospitals pay doctors for diagnosis and billable treatment. If a patient is healed without treatment, the hospital does not make the same amount of money.

Nevertheless, I would like to begin by asking at what point is someone considered dead?

I don't know. I'm not a medical professional.

So even though you are not a medical professional, you are confident that in every case I listed in the prior post, those individuals were not dead. You believe they were almost dead, because some medical professionals changed their mind, or in other cases, the changed opinion came from another person.

I am not suggesting that Jesus had a near death experience. Quite the contrary. I am affirming that even today, more than 2000 years later we have accounts of people who were once dead (even confirmed by medical experts) and yet these people coming back to life.

Ok if people come back to life all the time as you suggest, then what's so special about Jesus?

Since a person coming back to life is not impossible or never happened as you intimated, it brings credence to the account recorded in the gospels. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus is not based on a fairy tale or delusional faith. The fact that people come back to life today is just a small cog in the overall faith of the believer. One's faith can be founded on various things. I am just pointing out that the argument that Jesus' resurrection being impossible because no one else ever came back to life is a misnomer.

[Justin108]

"Admit"? This assumes that the people were, in fact, dead. How do you know they were, in fact, dead and not simply almost dead as the medical professionals suggest?

It was the same medical professionals which declared these individuals dead in the first place. You are comfortable enough to accept their opinion that the persons were almost dead, but ignore their original expert opinion. Why?

I'm not ignoring their original expert opinion, I am considering the possibility that they may have made a mistake when declaring the person dead. It may be that the methods we use to determine whether someone is dead is flawed, but this does not mean that these people came back from the dead.

If a doctor pronounces a person dead, it is considered a fact that the person is dead.

Medical diagnoses are hardly ever facts. They are educated guesses. Often very reliable, but not iron clad. That is why people often get second opinions when it comes to matters of medicine. One doctor can tell a cancer patient that he has six months to live while another says he has two years. Doctors can make mistakes.

Then if the doctor changes their mind, the "fact" changes to almost dead.

The "fact" doesn't change, his interpretation of the fact changes.

Medical professionals can't be moving the goalpost because they're not trying to win a debate...

I disagree. Doctors have a plethora of reasons to shift the goalposts. The control big pharma has in the medical industry. The money hospitals pay doctors for diagnosis and billable treatment. If a patient is healed without treatment, the hospital does not make the same amount of money.

What does any of this have to do with the matter of wrongly declaring someone dead?

Ok if people come back to life all the time as you suggest, then what's so special about Jesus?

Since a person coming back to life is not impossible or never happened as you intimated, it brings credence to the account recorded in the gospels.

Ok let's pretend that all of these people came back from the dead. Let's pretend that it's common knowledge that people come back from the dead all the time.

KingandPriest: I believe Jesus is the son of God
Justin: why?
KingandPriest: because he came back from the dead
Justin: so? People come back from the dead all the time

Do you see the problem here? If people came back from the dead all the time, as you seem to be suggesting, then Jesus stops being special. In this scenario, I would believe that Jesus came back from the dead, but I wouldn't care because people come back from the dead all the time.

I am just pointing out that the argument that Jesus' resurrection being impossible because no one else ever came back to life is a misnomer.

- If people never come back from the dead, then I have no reason to believe Jesus did.
- If people occasionally come back from the dead, then I have no reason to believe that Jesus is special

Either way, the case for Jesus being the son of God fails - whether resurrection is a common phenomena or not.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 334 by Justin108]

Ok let's pretend that all of these people came back from the dead. Let's pretend that it's common knowledge that people come back from the dead all the time.

KingandPriest: I believe Jesus is the son of God
Justin: why?
KingandPriest: because he came back from the dead
Justin: so? People come back from the dead all the time

Do you see the problem here? If people came back from the dead all the time, as you seem to be suggesting, then Jesus stops being special. In this scenario, I would believe that Jesus came back from the dead, but I wouldn't care because people come back from the dead all the time.

I would like to point out that I never stated that as the reason why I place my faith in Christ. You also never asked me why, you assumed this because I pointed out the flaw in your earlier statements.

Now you suppose that Jesus stops being special because other people have come back from the dead. The problem is the account which informs us about Jesus, states far more about his life, death and resurrection than just a random guy who died and came back to life. The truth is you are confronted with a choice about whether or not the remaining account is true or could be true.

It is also not true that people come back from the dead all the time. There are some cases, but these are rare. Each with specific differences. These accounts support other claims found within the bible. Choosing to ignore these facts to remain in doubt, does not typically support ones argument.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 335 by KingandPriest]
It might not be your reason, but it is The Tanager's. And he was the one I was debating at the time when you stepped in to insist that people came back from the dead occasionally. Now I don't know what your argument is regarding the truth of Christianity, but The Tanager's falls flat once you take the resurrection away.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 336 by Justin108]

But it does not appear that you can take the resurrection away. You can only do so as a suggestion, not with evidence or proof to substantiate your claim. There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible than impossible.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 336 by Justin108]

But it does not appear that you can take the resurrection away. You can only do so as a suggestion, not with evidence or proof to substantiate your claim. There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible than impossible.

As explained, if we were to assume that resurrections happen from time to time, then the resurrection event of Jesus stops being remarkable. If the resurrection event stops being remarkable, The Tanager's argument fails as well.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 336 by Justin108]

But it does not appear that you can take the resurrection away. You can only do so as a suggestion, not with evidence or proof to substantiate your claim. There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible than impossible.

As explained, if we were to assume that resurrections happen from time to time, then the resurrection event of Jesus stops being remarkable. If the resurrection event stops being remarkable, The Tanager's argument fails as well.

Understood, but outside of conjecture, how and when did the resurrection cease being remarkable. As you stated, only if you suppose it was.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 337 by KingandPriest]

Paul explicitly says the Jesus resurrection stuff is from Scripture. Not real life.

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, rising from his place below, and building up Gods house, given supreme authority over Gods domain and ending all sins in a single day.

Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.

Isaiah 52-53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.