Did Jesus Even Rise From The Dead?

Originally posted by helen670
Quote from spamandham///
Then why was Mary so concerned about the wine?

Well, I would have to say Mary was a nice person who cared about the people...This was a celebration!

It's more than that. She asked Jesus to do it even though she knew his time had not yet come.

Originally posted by helen670
Jesus Christ was married?
Let's see....
If indeed Christ was married would not His enemies(the Scribes and Pharisees)have said this about Him to accuse Him!

Why would they? Marriage was expected. The fact that they never said anything about him being single says something though, as they certainly would have thrown accusations around in that regard.

Originally posted by helen670
Who actually performed the marriage ceremony?

It doesn't say. There's no reason to think Jesus performed the ceremony. In fact, by his own admission, his time had not yet come, so clearly he was not the one performing the ceremony.

Originally posted by helen670
''But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
not even Christ has been raised: and if Christ has not been raised,
then our preaching is in vain,
your faith also is in vain.'' [1Cor 15:13-14]

IX
helen

Solid! Have I told you recently that I appreciate you helen? If not, I really do. On topic and on target. Nice work.

spamandham
quote: Originally posted by slymattb
I am going to have to say most likely saint4God is right it is most likely a conspiracy. Like so many others.
quote spam
What do you base your estimate of the probabilities on?

I base my estimate on the fact that there are no facts ( there is no poof of the fact) that Jesus was married. Only theorys, theorys which mean now conspiracy to me. And if you notice I said most likely. As in possibility.

quote spam
You're assuming that the Bible we have today was written by people who knew Jesus and we have those original writings. This isn't the case. Paul wrote most of the New Testament and admits he never knew Jesus. The writer of Acts (pressumed to be the writer of Luke) also admits that his information was passed down rather than being first hand, which implicates Matthew and Mark as being handed down stories as well since they are too similar in word usage to reasonably be separate accounts. John was written too late to reasonably be a first hand account.

quote spam
You're assuming that the Bible we have today was written by people who knew Jesus and we have those original writings.

Your assuming that I believe that the Bible was wrightin by people who knew Jesus. I didnt say that. What i said was (Spam what your reading is out side of the bible, and if it where true the bible would have said something about a holly family from the pure son of christ. It says nothing. And your right the bible does not say its no true. But does the bible talk about things in life that are not true???? No of course not. It talks about those thing are true and living.)

What I believe is, the Bible is inspired by God and Jesus. By the spirit of God. That the people who wrote the Bible where men of God, who ever they are.

quote spam
You're assuming that the Bible we have today was written by people who knew Jesus and we have those original writings. This isn't the case. Paul wrote most of the New Testament and admits he never knew Jesus. The writer of Acts (pressumed to be the writer of Luke) also admits that his information was passed down rather than being first hand, which implicates Matthew and Mark as being handed down stories as well since they are too similar in word usage to reasonably be separate accounts. John was written too late to reasonably be a first hand account.

How can you even make this statement, first you say that the bible is corrupted, then you use biblical words to say its wrong. If the bible is corrupted, then people could have corrupted what paul. You cant say paul is right or believe in what he said,IF it maybe corrupted.

quote spam
Paul wrote most of the New Testament and admits he never knew Jesus

Where is your proof that paul wrote most of the new testiment. second Where in the bible that does paul says he never new Jesus?????

quote spam
The writer of Acts (pressumed to be the writer of Luke) also admits that his information was passed down rather than being first hand, which implicates Matthew and Mark as being handed down stories as well

Again where is your proof???? you said it your self pressumed. Which means possibility. second Where is your proof in the bible that luke says that his information was passed down rather than being first hand.
SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE NOT YOUR OWN WORDS.

QUOTE SPAM
The Bible is filled with negative clarifications just liek any other literary work. If it is your position the Bible makes only positive assertions, you've obviously never actually read it.

NOw you just dont read everything i say,. what i said was Quote
"And your right the bible does not say its no true. But does the bible talk about things in life that are not true???? No of course not.
I also said ". It talks about those things are true and living"

Where did i say that the bible only talks about the good in life. I didnt say that. Now your putting words in my mouth. I said the Bible talks about the things that a true and liveing. ALWAYS There and HAPPENING, or going to happen.
quote spam
you've obviously never actually read it.

You know nothing of me or about me, and have no clue what i have read. You only seam to put words in my mouth. When you said that YOU ASSUMED I meant that the bible talks about only the good. Which in fact you didnt really read fully what i said. In fact nothing in that quote was anywhere near what i said.

quote spam
Unless you are an inerrantist, this is not significant. There was plenty of time for 'she' to be changed to 'he', either before or after the oral tradition was originally recorded.

Thats if you believe the bible was inspired by god and not men alone.

Again I say if you still believe (without proof) that jesus was married read and that john is not the beloved read john 21 v20- 22 noicte it says him. Then go back to the supper to who leaned on jesus.
PLus if we read revelations chapter 19 v 7 "
LEt us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! FOR THE WEDDING OF THE LAMB HAS COME, and his bride has made her self ready. Notice that it says that the wedding HAS COME. second it says "his bride has made her self read.

How can there be a wedding or even a bride, if he is already married????????????????



[edit on 10-8-2005 by slymattb]

Sly, please learn to use the quote feature. It's not that hard and makes it much easier to follow your posts.

Originally posted by slymattb
I base my estimate on the fact that there are no facts ( there is no poof of the fact) that Jesus was married. Only theorys, theorys which mean now conspiracy to me.

There are facts, just not proof. The evidence is there, but not conclusive. However, I'm not aware of any contrary evidence. Are you?

Originally posted by slymattb
What I believe is, the Bible is inspired by God and Jesus. By the spirit of God. That the people who wrote the Bible where men of God, who ever they are.

Have you ever pondered why you believe that?

Originally posted by slymattb
How can you even make this statement, first you say that the bible is corrupted, then you use biblical words to say its wrong. If the bible is corrupted, then people could have corrupted what paul. You cant say paul is right or believe in what he said,IF it maybe corrupted.

It could well be corrupted, but if you accept that, then we are on the same page already. The best we can do from that perspective is to look for clues of corruption, recognizing that we can't know if we are right or not.

Originally posted by slymattb
quote spam
Paul wrote most of the New Testament and admits he never knew Jesus

Where is your proof that paul wrote most of the new testiment.

I don't have any proof, but that is Church tradition, and I see no reason to question that point. If you wish to deny it, I don't care. You could be right.

Originally posted by slymattb
second Where in the bible that does paul says he never new Jesus?????

When he explains his vision and even admits that he isn't sure whether it was bodily or not (2 Corinthians). Have you actually read the Bible? You are asking basic questions that you should already know the answers to if you are a Christian.

Originally posted by slymattb
Again where is your proof????

uhh, in the introduction to Acts when the author states that the information was passed down to him. You really should go read the book you are trying to defend. It doesn't look very good when an atheist is more knowledgeable on the basic facts.

Originally posted by slymattb
second Where is your proof in the bible that luke says that his information was passed down rather than being first hand.
SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE NOT YOUR OWN WORDS.

It is church tradition that the author of Luke and Acts are the same person. Lexically, this seems to be true, but if not, it doesn't matter to me. If you wish to propose they were different persons, I don't care.

Originally posted by slymattb
NOw you just dont read everything i say,. what i said was Quote
"And your right the bible does not say its no true. But does the bible talk about things in life that are not true???? No of course not.
I also said ". It talks about those things are true and living"

Well then, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The Bible is filled with examples of things it says are false.

Originally posted by slymattb

Originally posted by spamandham
you've obviously never actually read it.

You know nothing of me or about me, and have no clue what i have read.

You only seam to put words in my mouth. When you said that YOU ASSUMED I meant that the bible talks about only the good. Which in fact you didnt really read fully what i said. In fact nothing in that quote was anywhere near what i said.

Have you read it (all of it that is)? I'll answer for you. "No." How do I know? Because you are asking basic points that anyone who has actually read it should already know. Though, it is possible you've read it and either failed to comprehend it or have subsequently forgotten.

Originally posted by slymattb

Originally posted by spamandham
Unless you are an inerrantist, this is not significant. There was plenty of time for 'she' to be changed to 'he', either before or after the oral tradition was originally recorded.

Thats if you believe the bible was inspired by god and not men alone.

psst, that's what the 'inerrantist' business is all about.

Originally posted by slymattb
LEt us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! FOR THE WEDDING OF THE LAMB HAS COME, and his bride has made her self ready. Notice that it says that the wedding HAS COME. second it says "his bride has made her self read.

How can there be a wedding or even a bride, if he is already married????????????????

Is it your position that the word "wedding" as used in this verse refers to an actual wedding between a man and a woman?

[edit on 10-8-2005 by spamandham]

The fact that one cant not believe in something they can not see, is sading. You can only find God by faith. there is no proof that you can find with out God's power. god sent us here for free will choice. And to find God through Faith. you have no faith and will most likely never find God. Good luck. God bless.

Originally posted by slymattb
The fact that one cant not believe in something they can not see, is sading. You can only find God by faith. there is no proof that you can find with out God's power. god sent us here for free will choice. And to find God through Faith. you have no faith and will most likely never find God. Good luck. God bless.

What a cop out. You can't support your argument so you resort to a thinly vieled ad hominem. You've earned an ignore.

Not true I can post my arguments, but whats the point??? Nor will you every believe. And all you will do is twist what I say and what I mean. Even sometimes put word in my mouth. So why wast words on someone who wound not have faith. God didnt tell me to wast words.