Sense and Nonsense in Easter Thinking

COMMON SENSE AND LARGER SCOPE.

the creation of heavens and earth is much greater much huger much magnificiant than the creation of mankind and all possible species.

mankind come and go while heavens and earths are still there ,mankind go thru life and go thru death, but heavens and earths are still there way befor adam ,every mankind came to this earth not the earth came to mankind.

the resurction of mankind makes sense simply because the creator who created and initiated mankind can much easyly resurect and erect again and again what he intiated in the first place .

have mankind ever asked him/her self how adam came from ,adam was none ,creating mankind from none is much greater much devoting than resurecteing mankind.

the miracle of the birth of jesus makes sense ,any mankind in his/her right mind can go to the nearst maternity hospital and see the miracle of the birth of any mankind ,how mankind came from a tiny little sperm ?how he/she develop in his mother womb?
1-adam came from a dead mud by the leave of the creator .
2-jesus came from a mother kind with no father.
3-every mankind came from a sperm and egg father and mother.
all the above 3 are miracles.

life ,death and resurection of the species is absolutley in the hands of the creator of the species.

it,s absolut nonsense and ungratefullness and arrogance to claim that allmighty creator god who initiated this universe begoten an earthly son??????????? the bigset lie in the history of mankind that misled millions and millions of people thru time.why begeten a son?and why sacrifice a son for the sake and sin of mankind ,while the allmighty creator god can forgive mankind or punish mankind,he created mankind and he own what he created and he provide for what he created and he give life to what he created and he give death to what he created and he resurect what ever he created and he forgive and punish what so ever created.

why the creator of mankind and mankind wait all these years for jesus to come on the planet earth to save mankind????????????? ?who will save jesus and the rest of mankind?

glorify the creator not the creation.

TO A. THORN:

You wrote, " People can believe in the teachings of Jesus, without associating him directly with God, and that would be a problem for the Church."

One of the things that Jesus taught was to, "Come follow Me", it was not to "follow My teachings" was it not?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Before Jesus didn’t stay dead He had to get dead. Why?

Don't you wonder what Jesus did that made His father so angry He had Him crucified? Making sacrifices to the gods was commonplace at the time, (still is) but sacrificing God's own son to God?

Who was behind the crucifixion, us or God is the real question. If I read you correctly you said it was God. And we, only those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior are the beneficiaries. I'm positive that's your position.

Since God is almighty then God could have prevented the crucifixion, a given. Since God did not prevent it then God must have gone along with it. But who actually did it? Who is the beneficiary, accessory to the crime, (crucifying the son of God is a crime?).

Another significant given is that Jesus was the son of the being in the burning bush. That was God wasn't IT? Whatever IT was IT was the father of Jesus or the Bible is full of garbage. Not real good choices there.

Was that almighty God in the burning bush? Above we noted that almighty God could have prevented the crucifixion. The God in the burning bush could not get the Israelites out of Egypt without tricking Pharaoh. Doesn't sound very almighty to me. Pharaoh must have been more powerful than the being in the burning bush. Couldn't almighty God simply will the Israelites to wherever IT wanted them to be? Almighty God needs to use trickery, rely on killers on the run to get what IT wants?

Now try substituting Lucifer, the angel that wanted to be God instead of God in the burning bush. Make a lot more sense? Angels are not almighty but they can trick folks, Pharaoh even. And, we know that angels can impregnate women for the Bible says so doesn't it? I heard that somewhere. Need I supply references?

The picture is clear. IT was Lucifer in the burning bush. He comes from hell, a given. What happened to those who said Lucifer is God? What will happen to those who still say Lucifer is God?

IF is the biggest word in the English language for when IF is properly applied it tells us a tale that goes beyond our wildest imagination. For IF that was Lucifer in the burning bush, and the evidence is all in that direction, then the entire human race is lost for God will surely destroy the entire world. Don't you think? Hagee thinks so and thinks he's going to be raptured up too.

Of course we could change our sinful ways and stop worshiping Lucifer calling Him God and beg God to not destroy us. Maybe the Pagans can supply us with some God pleasing spells, magic words and so on. Or we can go on and let the big money come to those leading the multitudes to hell. And continue their high 'official' social status complete with tax incentives.

Here's the test. Does thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul make your head hurt? Think about how your head is going to feel when you find yourself in the house of the father of Jesus. It's a big house with plenty much room for all so I understand. Count me out. Give my space to an important person.

Mr. Elliott,

Since you opened the door a little bit on this one, I was wondering if you might mind me asking some questions of you. I've noticed that in the past you tend to be one of the few panelists which come back to your threads, and try to clear up issues that are going on.

A few questions for you, then:

1) Since you say that you taught in Hebrew, could you translate the words 'al-almah' for me? These are the original words used to describe the virgin birth in the bible (both in Isaiah, and then again in Matthew). But, my understanding of the translation is that it simply means a young woman, not necessarily a virgin.

2) Since you've obviously read the Bible in many different languages, as you suggest in this post, you must be familiar with the many, many cases of mistranslations, additions, and corrections that have occurred over the lifetime of Biblical documents. Whole passages have been added over time, and the Easter story isn't really all that different in this account. Why, if we know that the text has been changed over the course of years to include whole new passages, are we to believe that the text about the resurrection isn't the same way, adding new passages to make a grander story?

3) In response to this section of your post:

"Since the question would have made no sense to those who saw and interacted with Jesus after his death and burial, why does it make sense to anybody today? It is because some want to claim to be Christians in spite of their assumption that dead people-bodies stay dead, against the Christian creeds' affirmation of “the resurrection of the body.” So many are comfortable with this unbiblical marriage of convenience that scholars who teach it – for example, Marcus Borg – are popular in the mainline churches. / But that Jesus was resurrected only “in spirit” is massively contradicted in “The Resurrection of the Son of God,” an 800-page masterpiece by N.T.Wright, one of our “On Faith” panelists."

I think that, instead of people wanting to be Christian in spite of their assumption that dead people stay dead, it is more a function of logic being applied to the text. While the text may say one thing, all of our life experiences say another. And, with human experience showing that the printed word is not infallible, we have started to question the accuracy of documents printed well after the events occurred, and then translated through several people who could barely read. I, for one, think this is a great thing, because it allows you to take away from this great story a the basic messages, without the need to get muddled in the specific text.

Was Jesus born to a virgin mother? Not likely, but it's a good story, and the message is that Jesus is God's son, delivered however, that came to save people from their sins. Does Jesus need to be born of a virgin to do this? No. So why continue to make special note of it? Why continue to make that a pivotal point of the story when it takes away from the message?

Does Jesus need to be fully resurrected for people to believe that he was the son of God, and that he is now in heaven watching over us? No. It's a great story, to be sure, and one that helped the people of years long gone by to understand the story, but it certainly isn't necessary for Jesus's message. So, again, why continue it on? Why continue to focus on that one aspect of Jesus, if it takes away from the message?

From talking to many Christians, one of the stories that is most well liked from the Bible is that of the Sermon on the Mount. Despite the dubious accuracy of that sermon, can you tell me which part of that sermon is dependent on Jesus being born to a virgin mother or on his resurrection? Wouldn't the sermon's message apply just as well if Jesus had just been a regular guy with a really great point? Where did this need to make Jesus the son of God, with supernatural abilities, come from?

The problem lies in the fact that if Jesus isn't the son of God, then the religion is in trouble, not the belief. People can believe in the teachings of Jesus, without associating him directly with God, and that would be a problem for the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Hillary_Clinton

wiki/Hillary_Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary

http://en.wikipedia.org

Hillary_Clinton

Another excellent treatise sir. Just wish we Could get Sproul and some of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Scholars to post here.

The Notion concerned keeps expressing that Jesus seminarians are the only modern Biblical scholars is utterly ludicrous.

Mr. Elliot:

I was wondering if you would please comment on how the festival surrounding Ishtar, or Astarte...along with bunnies and eggs has anything whatsoever to do with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is nothing scriptural about it. Even the mention of Easter in the NT is widely known by many scholars as a human-interjected mistranslation (or better put, substitution) of the greek word 'pascha' (or Passover).

The book of Hebrews tells us our Lord and Savior is the same yesterday, today and foever. That same Jesus Christ, who previously was the logos before becoming flesh, continuously warns us not to follow the way of the heathen. The book of Revelation warns us not to add to nor take away from what scripture says. Easter, as well as other 'Christian' 'holidays' (counterfeits of Holy Days) are nothing but error. Could you also please elaborate on how and where the Nicene council got their 'authority' to change things?

Whatever the reasoning, though, Catholic or otherwise....the reality, Rev. 12:9, tells it all.

Thanks for your time

Dear Rev Elliott

I wish a wonderful Easter 2008!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

There are three metaphors than run throughout the bible. They are: (1) the metaphor of sin and forgiveness; (2) the metaphor of exile and return, and; (3) the metaphor of death and resurrection.

Each leads to a transformed life which is the goal of the Kingdom of God which is within us all.

Happy Bunny Day to everyone since Easter did not happen!!

Can you still be a Christian without the Resurrection? There are too many flaws to include the resurrection story in the current Christian orthodoxies. Clean it up and see what is left historically and then redefine Christianity.

Some facts:

From an analyses of the documents by many contemporary NT exegetes:

The Resurrection is fiction i.e. it was added to make Jesus akin to the Caesars and Greek half gods/half men.

(1a) Mark 8:31-33 = Matt 16:2l-23 = Luke 9:22, (1b) Mark 9:9b = Matt 17:9b, (1c) Mark 9:12b = Matt 17:12b, (1d) Mark 9:30-32= Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43b-45, (1e) Luke 17:25, (1f) Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34, (1g) Matt 26:1-2, (1h) Mark 14:21 = Matt 26:24 = Luke 22:22, (1i) Mark 14:41= Matt 26:45b,(1j) Luke 24:7

Conclusion: Many references but only a single attestation and from the Second stratum (60-80 AD).

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus

From the course notes of a large Catholic university's graduate theology class:

"Heaven is a Spirit state (no physical bodies abide there.)

Christ's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and many other contemporary NT exegetes' conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

Some added tidbits:

According to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

"Reimarus (1774-1779) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."