This Christian actually was persecuted for her beliefs

[dales]

I believe that anyone calling themselves a "Christian" would have no problem with the following:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into existence,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens,
and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man,
and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried,
and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures
and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father,
and will come again with glory to judge living and dead,
of Whose kingdom there will be no end;
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver,
Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism to the remission of sins;
we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen

The Nicean Creed c. C.E. 361

[MajGenl.Meade]

You believe wrong then, Dales. As Big RR might explain. Or not.

[Lord Jim]

You can count me with Meade on this one...

Now christians state jesus died and was resurrected, but Is this materially different from saying jesus did not die but was resurrected by god?

In my view, it is manifestly and completely different...

And the difference is at the very core of the Christian Faith:

1 Peter 1:3 - Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Peter 3:18 (KJV) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


Romans 8:11 - But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Romans 6:4 - Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4King James Version (KJV)

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

(All citations are taken from the King James Version.)

I don't see how Christ could have "died for our sins" without dying...

[Big RR]

Meade--Not. But I will point out that is but one version of the nicene creed, the one subscribed to by the Orthodox churches. The Roman churches and their offspring (including most protestant churches) often change the line about the holy spirit to read: Who proceeds from the Fatherand the son"; some would at least object to the statement that the spirit proceeds from the father alone. But then, that's just part of my understanding of the great schism, not my own opinion. Maybe you could explain?

Jim--my point was that the Koran does not say that Jesus did not die; did he die and then become resurrected by god or did he not die--it is not clear. Figures of speech are not exact--in some gospel accounts the angel said to the women at the tomb "Why do you seek the living among the dead"; it could be argued that that was a very strange statement since everyone presumed Jesus had died--did the angel mean they were mistaken or that he was now resurrected? We can shift the interpretation either way.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't know al that much about Islam and their beliefs about Jesus, but the passage Meade gave for proof that they deny the resurrection is full of ambiguity.

[Gob]

It either happened or it didn't happen.

.

Didn't happen.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That wasn't "not" at all! You made a point that I'd expect, Big RR - and it is a point. I disagreed with Dales' expectation with adequate reason.

I did not quote any passage on Muslim belief about Jesus. I made a comment about the belief. Here is commentary and passage:

Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the plan of Jesus’ enemies to crucify him, but God saved him and raised him up to Him. And the likeness of Jesus was put over another man. Jesus’ enemies took this man and crucified him, thinking that he was Jesus. God has said:

...They said, “We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)... (Quran, 4:157)

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10.htm. I think this is an Islamic source - if not, please correct.

As to this: "did the angel mean they were mistaken or that he was now resurrected?" the answer is, quite plainly, 'yes'. They were mistaken in thinking he was in the tomb; he had been resurrected. Why make it either/or requiring "interpretation" where all that is required is reading? [I note here that "interpretation" means "making it fuzzy"]

Thanks for the edification, Gob.

[Gob]

Angels? Fnarrr...

[Big RR]

Meade--OK

Happy Holidays

[MajGenl.Meade]

Happy Jesus' Birthday!

[Econoline]

Angels? Fnarrr...

They're imaginary creatures...so why not let your imagination run wild?

[RayThom]

Is that holy chrism this xxx angel is dripping with? That's just plain nasty. Jenny cleans up nicely though.

[rubato]

You believe wrong then, Dales. As Big RR might explain. Or not.

"...
Well, the primitive Baptists they believe
That you can't go to heaven 'less you wash your feet
And that's all, I'll tell you that's all
'Cause you better have Jesus
I tell you that's all
Well, the African Methodists, they believe the same
'Cause they know demonination ain't a thing but a name
And that's all, I'll tell you that's all
'Cause you better have Jesus
I tell you that's all ... "

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

BAH humbug the holiday season crap, I wish you all a Merry Christmas because there wasn’t no guy named Holiday.

Jesus Christ is the for the season. The next time I see one of those holiday season message I am going to mark out holiday and write in Christ mas.

[Lord Jim]

there wasn’t no guy named Holiday.

"Ah beg to diffuh"...

[kmccune]

I'm a Christian,however,I do have problem concerning the Holocaust and things like famine,atomic weapons,etc.Why does God permit these things to happen?
As far as Jihad and the like,God is big enough to fight His own battles.

[MajGenl.Meade]

kmccune, hope there's a good church available near you. Scoff as the disbelievers will.... the Bible teaches that God created man in his own image - meaning not the two arms/legs etc. thing but the mental/spiritual capacity of freedom. Only in freedom can we love - anything else is coercion, which is not love. Man used his freedom to choose disobedience and separation from God. The result is the world we have.

God could destroy us all - we deserve justice more than we deserve mercy. God could micro-manage us all, forcing us to "be good" with no choices. He doesn't. He sent Jesus (which in Christianity means himself, in some fashion) to take the punishment for everyone. We can either claim that and accept forgiveness or we can reject it.

The non-Christian believes that the pains and horrors of this world are not our fault at all. They are God's fault because he does not change it all (to the way they think it should be). Oddly, they don't believe in this God in the first place but, if he did exist and he really did prevent us from doing anything wrong, then he'd be evil to do that!

Essentially kmmcune, as long as we're in this world, God permits our choices to determine what goes on. Why doesn't God do something about it? He has. What do we choose?

[wesw]

free will = liberty=free speech

you have to choose your own path.

[RayThom]

kmccune, hope there's a good church available near you. Scoff as the disbelievers will.... the Bible teaches that God created man in his own image - meaning not the two arms/legs etc. thing but the mental/spiritual capacity of freedom. Only in freedom can we love - anything else is coercion, which is not love. Man used his freedom to choose disobedience and separation from God. The result is the world we have.

God could destroy us all - we deserve justice more than we deserve mercy. God could micro-manage us all, forcing us to "be good" with no choices. He doesn't. He sent Jesus (which in Christianity means himself, in some fashion) to take the punishment for everyone. We can either claim that and accept forgiveness or we can reject it.

The non-Christian believes that the pains and horrors of this world are not our fault at all. They are God's fault because he does not change it all (to the way they think it should be). Oddly, they don't believe in this God in the first place but, if he did exist and he really did prevent us from doing anything wrong, then he'd be evil to do that!

Essentially kmmcune, as long as we're in this world, God permits our choices to determine what goes on. Why doesn't God do something about it? He has. What do we choose?

However, when you die and find out you've gone absolutely nowhere, man, you are going to be in for a rude awakening. Me, on the other hand, will be exactly where I planned -- Cadaver City at UofP Hospital where I'll be helping others with my spare parts and teaching new medical students about anatomy and physiology. Literally, teaching all about the true meaning of life.

No God necessary, thank you.

[Gob]

Only in freedom can we love - anything else is coercion, which is not love.

How very odd, and omnipotent being with a need for human emotion.

God could destroy us all - we deserve justice more than we deserve mercy. God could micro-manage us all, forcing us to "be good" with no choices. He doesn't. He sent Jesus (which in Christianity means himself, in some fashion) to take the punishment for everyone.

Now that is just plain weird. Why on earth would an omnipotent being do something so silly? Because he loves us? He created something to love? How very human.

The non-Christian believes that the pains and horrors of this world are not our fault at all. They are God's fault because he does not change it all (to the way they think it should be). Oddly, they don't believe in this God in the first place but, if he did exist and he really did prevent us from doing anything wrong, then he'd be evil to do that!

Essentially kmmcune, as long as we're in this world, God permits our choices to determine what goes on. Why doesn't God do something about it? He has. What do we choose?

So he's a sadist who sets up this situation so that we have a chance to fail, then judges us on it. How daft is that? Too human.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Interesting but not so logical. If God is the creator and man the created, why assume "love" (or anything else) originated in humans? Given that the text says God created man in His image (not meaning physical), "love" is obviously a Godly emotion first, with which He endowed us. We are capable because He is able.

God does not "need" love; He lacks nothing. He created all things. You can't create all things without creating love, else then you'd have all things minus one. Having chosen to create all things, is there some reason God should not consider it fondly (if you like that word)? Are you arguing that because you like or dislike certain things, God should not be allowed either to like or dislike? That because you think, God surely cannot do such a "human" thing?

I'm only responding to your first. That seems sufficient for the present or else it gets too long and complex. You made an objection - it's answered. You don't have to agree that the answer is correct - it will be perfectly OK to acknowledge that your particular argument has been knocked down.