"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

[Zzyzx]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #53]

A - If Paul is imitating Christ, and we are to imitate Paul - then we TOO are to imitate Christ.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! Because the thing is you insisted, "We are not to imitate Paul." In fact, you went on to insist, "I never once said that we are to "imitate those such as Paul." Again, is it any wonder why I continue to say, "you cannot make this stuff up?" I mean. on the one hand you insist we are not to "imitate those such as Paul" but when I demonstrate you are incorrect, you continue to insist you are somehow correct. TOO, TOO, FUNNY, but expected.

You understand how 'if, then' works, right?

For some reason you are arguing that we are not to imitate Christ; that Christ's command to follow His example does not extend to anyone other than the apostles.

Yet, you believe we are to imitate Paul. If you believe we are to imitate Paul, and Paul imitates Christ, then we would also need to imitate Christ. Yes?

Peace again.

[historia]

The claim was:
"Tales of 'resurrection' are a common theme in ancient mythology and religions."

Okay, let's address the word 'resurrection' here, as this whole argument hinges on an equivocation of that term:

If, on the other hand, by "resurrection" you just mean any life after death -- including, to go back to the second name on the original list, the Buddha, who passed into final Nirvana where there is no more personal existence -- then I think that poses several problems

Since I am referring to dictionaries, what you think I might mean is irrelevant.

That's not how language works, my friend. Words carry meaning based on how one uses them. In your (and Zzyzx's) argument, you're using the word "resurrection" loosely to mean nearly any kind of life after death.

I appreciate that you want to appeal to dictionary definitions to try to ground that usage, but you are, in turn, interpreting these dictionary definitions loosely as well. Let's see how the two principle historical and contemporary English dictionaries define this word:

From Merriam Webster:

res·ur·rec·tion

1 a Resurrection : the rising of Christ from the dead
b often Resurrection : the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment
c: the state of one risen from the dead

The Oxford English Dictionary gives a similar definition (note: 1.a concerns Easter):

1.b. The rising of Christ from the dead.

2. The rising of the dead as a tenet of religious belief; spec. (in Christian and Islamic thought) that which is to occur at the Last Judgement (also more fully the general resurrection).

The word "resurrection" came into the English language via Christianity (from ecclesiastical Latin), which is why Merriam Webster and the OED define the word in specifically Christian terms.

For that reason, "resurrection" doesn't describe just any kind of life after death, it's specifically describing coming back to life here on earth, as you find that idea expressed in Christianity and related religions that have this as a tenet of their faith.

Merriam Webster gives a bit of the etymology of the term as well:

The word resurrection first arose in English in the 14th century, coming from the Anglo-French word resurreccioun, which in turn comes from the Late Latin verb resurgere, meaning "to rise from the dead."

The Latin word resurgere has as its root a word that means "to sit up again," as from a recumbent position. And so "to rise from the dead" carries the connotation of a dead body sitting back up, physically returning to life here on earth.

Even in these other Internet dictionaries you cited, when they define resurrection as "returning" to life or being "restored" to life, what that is indicating is that the dead person is being brought back to the previous state or condition they were in before they died -- i.e., alive on earth.

That's different from someone dying and their immortal soul or spirit going off into the after-life. That's not going "back" or "returning" or being "restored" to life. It is, rather, going off into a "new" life in a very different mode of existence. It appears you've missed that nuance when considering these definitions.

I acknowledge the story that when Jesus was returned to life, it happened here on earth. Can you acknowledge the stories where we have a theme of returning to life, sometimes here on earth and other times elsewhere?

No, for the reasons I just stated. If your immortal soul or spirit is going off "elsewhere," that is not "returning" to life.

In addition to using the term 'resurrection' loosely, you're also using it inconsistently in your analysis, as these examples illustrate:

Hercules ascended to Mount Olympus and attained immortality after his death.

Zoroastrian tradition teaches that the souls of the good will be resurrected.

In the first example, Hercules dies in a funeral pyre and his immortal soul goes off to 'heaven' (Olympus). You call that 'resurrection'.

In the second example, the immortal souls of the righteous also go off to 'heaven' (Paradise). But you don't call that resurrection. Instead, you note (rightly) that they "will be resurrected" at some point in the future, as that is something different from your soul going off to heaven.

To be consistent, you'd have to say that, in Zoroastrian tradition, the souls of the righteous are currently resurrected and will be resurrected in the future. That is, of course, nonsensical, but that's what happens when you use terms too loosely.

Ask yourself this: Why are you not referring to Jesus and these other figures as examples of 'reincarnation'?

Reincarnation in fact does fit the theme of being restored to life.

That doesn't answer my question. Why haven't you been using the word "reincarnation" to describe this "theme," and these examples, throughout your argument?

People in the past, as today, had many different and conflicting ideas about life after death, with 'resurrection' just being one of several beliefs.

I agree that people in the past had many different and conflicting ideas about life after death. These many ideas were a fairly common theme in fact.

But, in that case, the "theme" here is logically life after death, not resurrection.

Your argument here is like someone arguing that all cars are Toyotas. Not all cars are, in fact, made by Toyota, so calling a Ford or a Honda a "Toyota" shows confusion. That's true even as Fords and Hondas naturally have some similarities to Toyotas, since they are, you know, all cars.

Likewise, resurrection is not reincarnation, nor is it your soul or spirit going off into the after-life, nor is it any of the other various ideas about life after death. Calling all of these different ideas "resurrection" shows confusion on your part -- even as those other beliefs naturally have some similarities to resurrection, since they are, you know, all ideas about life after death.

I would argue that the Osiris myth falls under the theme of resurrection more accurately than is goes against such a theme. Why do you disagree?

First of all, to even frame your analysis in this way is to tacitly admit that there is some objective definition of resurrection, and that it's possible for a myth or other account to "fall under" that definition completely and thereby not "go against" it at all.

Whereas this Osiris myth, by your own admission, only sorta falls under that definition in some respects but goes against it in others. As long as it's just over half-way ("more than not") you call it "resurrection." That's sloppy.

It's more precise to just recognize that some ancient accounts are about 'resurrection' and others are not. The Osiris myth is not, for the reasons below:

Osiris was murdered by his brother. His wife restored his body. He then had a son (Horus) after being dead and then restored.

Readers, ask yourself is someone being restored to life . . .

Let's be more precise here, as the details matter:

In Plutarch's version of the myth -- the only complete one we have -- Isis finds and separately buries each of Osiris' body parts. His body is not restored, and he is not brought back to life. She buries him precisely so his spirit can live on in the Underworld.

There is no complete Egyptian account of the myth, but allusions to differing versions of the story appear in various liturgical texts and inscriptions. In some of those, Isis, in the form of a bird, brings Osiris' body parts together -- which is what you seem to be alluding to above. She then uses magic to revivify his individual body parts in order to extract his "essence" (i.e., semen). Osiris is not himself "restored to life."

Consider an analogy: If someone dies and doctors posthumously extract their semen, we wouldn't say that the dead person was "restored to life" during that procedure -- they are still very much dead. The doctors are just extracting sperm from the corpse while the semen is still viable, so that the dead person's wife can subsequently become pregnant. Isis does the same thing, just with magic.

Readers, ask yourself is someone being restored to life reflect a theme involving being restored to life.

What readers should really do here is decide whether they should trust the analysis and opinions of an anonymous Internet message board poster who has no expertise in Egyptology. Or, instead, if they should trust actual experts writing in a reliable source like the Encyclopedia Britannica.

What did they say again?

From about 2000 BCE onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death. This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth.

That's right: This myth is not about resurrection, since Osiris did not rise from the dead.

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #53]

I am sorry, Jack, but this is incorrect. I believe you missed the point in Matt 28:20:

"...and teaching them (all new disciples) to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

"And teaching THEM" you are correct the "them" would be the "new disciples." However, when it goes on to say, "everything I have commanded YOU", the "YOU" would be the apostles.

EXACTLY.

So then, when we get to the next sentence where is said, "and surely I am with YOU always", who is the "YOU?" Notice, it does not say, I will be with "THEM." It does not say, "I will be with YOU ALL." The point is, if the THEM in the first sentence is the new disciples, and the YOU is the apostles, you cannot go to the next sentence and insist the YOU is anything but the same apostles which were in mind in the first sentence. Do you see how you take liberty in interpreting in the way in which you would rather believe?

Actually, the point had nothing to do with the last sentence, but since you've brought that up:

If I am having a conversation with a few friends and I tell them that they can call me anytime, it doesn't mean that my other friends CAN'T call me anytime.

I mean - what are you suggesting? That Christ is not with His Bride, His Body, His sheep, His Church? That He was only with the apostles and that was it?

Doesn't Christ makes it clear that He had more to call and that they too would hear His voice and there would be one flock with ONE Shepherd.

"I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd."

My Lord reminded me of these words a long time ago in relation to another group (the WTS/JW religion) that teaches their people something similar as you are teaching. That the words and commands He gave to the apostles were only for some, but not all.

Well, the fact of the matter is, there are times in which the commands given to the apostles would apply to us all, and then there are times when the commands would only apply to the apostles and would not include us today. As an example, on one occasion Jesus commanded the apostles “Do not leave Jerusalem."

That is a command for a one time occurrence, specific to a particular event (directly after the resurrection of Christ and before His ascension.) It can no longer be relevant. Surely you can understand that?

Moreover, and something you have not addressed, was the command to the apostles to "go into all the world and preach the gospel" intended only for the apostles?

This is a good question. Not even the apostles went to every nation though - so it would seem to extend to people beyond them. If one is a witness to Christ, then one bears witness to Him (it is kind of in the title) wherever they may be - and this is done out of LOVE for Him. If I receive something more on this matter and can share it, I will.

Or was this a command to all of us as Christians? If it was a command to all of us as Christians, then why are the overwhelming majority of Christians not obeying the command? Are you obeying this command? Are you traveling the world preaching the gospel to all nations?

For me - not that I am anyone or anything, a poor and undeserving servant - I have gone where/to whom I have been sent by my Lord.

Not everyone must (or is even able) to travel the world. Not even the apostles went to every nation on the planet. Although logistically speaking, especially today, we can bear witness to various cities and nations without even leaving our homes (for example, I am in a different part of the world than most people on this forum.)

You see, it is a fact which cannot be denied, that all the commands to the apostles do not apply to us today, and that is easily demonstrated by the context. Looks like the Lord would have reminded you of this as well when He was reminding you of the other "long ago." Sort of strange how He only reminds you of the things you would rather believe. It is also sort of strange how some of the things He reminds you of turns out to be in error.

Some things were specific to the time and place - but the command to eat and drink (the bread and wine that mean His body and blood) is a command to all. My Lord did not teach me in error.

Same with washing one another's feet. Serving others, making oneself the least, forgiving, not judging, listening to Christ, etc.

Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.

You see Tammy, this is why it is so difficult to demonstrate your error,

I think you need to make up your mind, Jack. Is it easy or is it difficult?

because you simply take one little passage completely out of its context. I do not have the time to go through all that would be involved, but the passage you are referring to has a very large context, even going into the next chapter. At the end of the next chapter, we read this,

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning."

I mean, do you see that? You reach way back to the previous chapter somehow insisting that you are included when Jesus says, "I will reveal myself to him",
but when we arrive to the end of this whole conversation, we determine that the ones this promise is made to, are those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of His earthly ministry.

Look more closely (or better yet, ask the One who does know and listen to Him):

"Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”
22Judas (not Iscariot) asked Him, “Lord, why are You going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?”

23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

Do you see the 'anyone' in His words there?

Whoever has my commands... if anyone loves me... the one who loves me...

His words here are not solely for the apostles.

How is it that you claim this promise for yourself? Again, you continue to insist this direct communication with Jesus, and continue to demonstrate one who cannot even interpret the revealed Word correctly.

I know this promise is true, because He has kept this promise with me. But it is not just a promise for me - but for ANYONE who loves Him, for WHOEVER keeps His commands and loves Him.


May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit and the Bride say to YOU, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"

Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #53]

You may have thought about it, but it does not appear as though you understand it.

If someone is walking by faith - how can you imitate that faith without also walking by faith?

As we can see, you not only do not possess the ability to interpret scripture (which you admit yourself) you do not even possess the ability to interpret what I am saying.

Oh, I can admit that your posts leaving me scratching my head. For example:

I have never suggested that we as Christians should walk by sight as opposed to faith.

Then what in the world are you arguing about, Jack?

You have spent all this time arguing that I am wrong to apply these words (that we are to walk by faith rather than by sight) to myself (or to anyone other than Paul & Trope, even though you also added the apostles even if they were not there.) Yet now you seem to be agreeing that we should walk by faith, rather than by sight.

So answer clearly: are Christians meant to walk by faith, rather than by sight?

If you answer yes, then you have wasted all this time and energy arguing against something you actually believe is true!

Rather, what I demonstrated was, one cannot use the passage in which Paul says, "we walk by faith and not by sight" and claim that Paul was referring to us as Christians when he said, "we walk by faith and not by sight" because he did not have this in mind at all when he penned the words. Rather, as can be clearly demonstrated, he penned these words to the Corinthians who were "looking at things outwardly" and explaining to these Christians, that he (Paul) and those traveling with him, did "walked by faith and not by sight."

All I said was this:

Because although we are called to walk by faith, most people walk by sight until (and unless) they learn to walk by faith... faith, which is heard.

Do you disagree that we are called to walk by faith?


Peace again.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #43]

Again, you seem to be saying that we cannot be certain about the meaning in scripture,

I’m certain about that, kindly omit the ‘seem’ above.

but for some strange reason you do not seem to have trouble coming to the correct meaning while you are here on this site most every day.

The bible’s purpose in our lives is essential in knowing the truth about God and our salvation. But to come up with the specifics for this purpose lies only in the hands of God, who is always beside us and in a 24/7 watch mode for those who will come to and call upon Him in their search for the truth to all that their souls need to be with Him in His kingdom in due time.

Are you suggesting that I must have some sort of communication with Jesus in order to be certain about what Paul is saying when he says, "we take every thought captive?" I'm telling you that you do not need a divine revelation in order to know what is being communicated. It ain't that complicated!

I’m certain that the truth about everything [be it in the bible or in our/your own lives] will only come to us through Jesus. All you have said here, except for the biblical passages you quoted, is nothing but your personal take or opinion about Paul’s epistles.

Btw, why would your wife seek you out for some help if you were able to talk to and hear Jesus today?

My friend, as far as I can see, Tam is not disagreeing with the interpretation I have given concerning Paul saying, "we take every thought captive." What I was saying I can convince you of is the meaning Paul had in mind to the Corinthians when he said, "we take every thought captive."

I mean, you start this post arguing over my interpretation of Paul, and Tam as far as I can tell is not disagreeing with the interpretation I have given, and the only thing I have said that I could convince anyone of is the meaning Paul had when he said, "we take every thought captive."

Paul is no longer with us to confirm or deny the accuracy or inaccuracy of your interpretation of his writings. It’s all your claim of accuracy that you’re now exhibiting to us by and through your own narratives.

Why would you have to interpret Paul’s words if he had explained them all? Say, ‘this one is red,’ and that one over there is ‘black,’ do they need to be explained further?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #63]

Okay. we are going to take this one thing at a time until we resolve this one thing.

If I am having a conversation with a few friends and I tell them that they can call me anytime, it doesn't mean that my other friends CAN'T call me anytime.

You are absolutely correct, and you are making my point. We cannot determine whether any of your other friends, besides the friends you are addressing at the time are free to call you anytime. This is because you are only addressing a certain group of friends, and say nothing whatsoever concerning any other friends, and we cannot simply assume the offer you are giving to this certain group of friends, would apply to any, and all other friends.

This is exactly what you are doing. I am not the one who is bringing these passages up in order to defend my position that I have a direct line to Jesus. That would be you. You are taking passages out of the Bible which were clearly addressed to individuals at the time, and assuming these passages must apply to you as well. I am only pointing out that these passages were addressed to certain individuals at the time, and they do not apply to you.

As an example, you want to take the part in the passage when it says, "I will be with you always even to the end of the age," and apply it to yourself, but somehow the "going into all the world and preaching the gospel" does not apply to you. The point is you would be correct that simply because Jesus was addressing the apostles does not demonstrate these things would not apply to us, but it also does not demonstrate these things spoken to the apostles do apply to us, and that is what you are doing.

So, let's go through this again to be clear. From your conversation with this certain group of friends, we certainly cannot assume this offer would only apply to this certain group of friends. However, we also certainly cannot assume this offer is opened to any, and all other friends you may have. This is what you are doing. Actually, what you are doing is to pick and choose what it is that applies to you as far as the conversation Jesus had with others. I mean, Jesus promised the apostles persecution. Are you experiencing persecution? I could continue on, and on, and what we would discover is that you will pick and choose those things promised to the apostles which you prefer that apply to you, but somehow those things which cause you to have discomfort in this life you will not claim as your own.

Again, one thing at a time. Next topic, and I cannot wait,

I mean - what are you suggesting? That Christ is not with His Bride, His Body, His sheep, His Church? That He was only with the apostles and that was it?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #65]

Okay, just like with Tam, let us take one thing at a time,

I’m certain about that, kindly omit the ‘seem’ above.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! You would not know a thing about the life of Jesus, His crucifixion, nor His resurrection without what is contained in the Bible, but we cannot be certain about anything which is communicated in the Bible. I mean, you cannot make this stuff up! You insist that I "omit the ‘seem’ above" because you are certain, that we cannot be certain concerning what is contained in the Bible, when you would not have known anything whatsoever concerning Jesus without the Bible.

Is there anyone who would like to know why Christianity is in such decline today? The above should explain it all!

[historia]

Much of the list does show a propensity for the theme of returning to life in ancient times (some don't and should be rejected).

Let's consider the origin of this list.

It ultimately derives from a 19th Century work called The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves, a spiritist who had no particular expertise in history. Needless to say, this is not a work taken seriously by scholars today.

More interesting for our purposes, though, is that Graves never claimed that this long list of figures were thought to be "resurrected." In fact, he only claims that seven of them were. The others he notes are mostly examples of a soul or spirit ascending to heaven.

So, even the person who came up with this list in the first place understood that resurrection is not the same thing as a soul or spirit going off to heaven.

Scholars today would largely take issue with even the seven figures Graves claimed were "resurrected," as we saw above with the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Osiris. But it would be foolish to try to defend these other names that even the author of the list himself says are not examples of resurrection.

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #63]

Okay. we are going to take this one thing at a time until we resolve this one thing.

Then may I suggest that you read post 64 because it pertains to this one thing.

viewtopic.php?p=1183929#p1183929

I am not the one who is bringing these passages up in order to defend my position that I have a direct line to Jesus.

I have noticed that while you claim the bible is all that we need, you don't use much of it in your arguments.

The following is what exactly I brought up and why:

The reason I support the things I share with what is written is so that you and others can see for yourselves what is written. Because although we are called to walk by faith, most people walk by sight until (and unless) they learn to walk by faith... faith, which is heard.

**

That being said, the reason I can bring up passages that support the truth that Christ speaks, is because such passages exist.

You, on the other hand, have brought NO passages that show that Christ stopped speaking (as you claim).

You tried to bring up a passage in Hebrews as if the words 'in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son' somehow means that God no longer speaks to us by His Son. But that CANNOT be the meaning, since Christ was still speaking to people after that verse was written.

Just because someone 'has spoken' does not mean they have 'stopped speaking.'

I mean, Jesus promised the apostles persecution. Are you experiencing persecution? I could continue on, and on, and what we would discover is that you will pick and choose those things promised to the apostles which you prefer that apply to you, but somehow those things which cause you to have discomfort in this life you will not claim as your own.

You didn't get that information from me; it appears to be an assumption on your behalf.

Matt 5:11,12


Peace again to you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #69]

You are avoiding the point, and I am not willing to move on until this issue is resolved one way or the other. You used the example of communication to a certain group of friends that they could call you anytime, in order to demonstrate that this communication to this certain group of friends did not necessitate that only this group of friends could call you anytime. I agreed with this, but it is also true that since you were only communicating to a certain group of friends, we cannot conclude from this communication to a certain group of friends, that this offer could be applied to any and all of your friends.

Okay, in the same way, when we read in the Bible where Jesus is communicating with a certain group of folks, such as the 11 apostles, and the author is careful to ensure the audience understands that only the 11 were involved in the conversation, we cannot simply assume that what was communicated to the 11 apostles, would apply to us as well. Moreover, we certainly cannot take a certain phrase such as the promise of Jesus when He tells the 11 "I will be with you until the end of the age" and claim that as applying to us, while rejecting the command to "go into all the world preaching the gospel" as if it does not apply to us, when both are in the same sentence.

So then, before we move on, can we agree that simply because something was communicated to audiences in the Bible, does not mean that what was communicated would apply to us?