Well I am content to let it just sit there for anyone interested to decide for themselves: miracle or just a simple story about survival?
I thank you for not burying my op under pages of posts that neither refute it nor can argue with it. It makes a refreshing change.
"lol what is this schizo nonsense" https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/xe/jesus-heals-a-daughter--remotely?comment_number=2
That's an absolute shite rebuttal, Mag1cman Mag1cman.
First off the BIBLE doesn't say the woman was "a gentile". As claimed by the Reverend. In the link below, it specifically states that she was a Canaanite. There is only one single bible of all the English bibles written that refers to her a gentile. https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-22.htm
Regardless,
This little story lasting only 8 short verses in Matthew 15:22-28 is titled.
The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
And here endeth the story.
So what is it about?
Well for those bone idle Christians that can't take the time to research what they preach to others and are oblivious to the tiniest of Jewish history this story needs some background.
Israel had been under the rule of the Greeks for some 400 years before the Romans who then ruled some 100+ years and all before Jesus the JEW had appeared on the scene.
One only has to imagine the change in culture, practices, society and religious beliefs that Israel had undergone during those times . Many Jews over generations by the time of Jesus had simply taken on Greek culture and religious beliefs i.e. they had become what is called - Hellenised. <<
Tyre and Sidon- (see above Matthew 15:2) were Roman port cities located in northern Israel on the Mediterranean and were heavily guarded.
Jesus was a wanted man both by Rome and the Jewish authorities and word had spread throughout Israel that the Messiah had indeed arrived.. some believed it while others didn't, regardless he and his followers were on the hit list as the BIBLE in many places clearly attests to.
So then we have this Canaanite woman appearing out of nowhere making a proper song and dance, begging on her knees and crying out to Jesus- a wanted man -"“Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me!", and all in broad daylight and in earshot of all authorities!
What was the response of Jesus ? It was to try to ignore her. (See Matthew 15:23 above) but she kept "crying out" aloud.
And the disciples that were accompanying him, what was their response?
Well to put this into plain modern English it was, shall we tell her to FK off before she blows our anonymity and gets us all arrested!
Jesus then spoke these now famous words that are easy for anyone to understand, even dulcet bible dunces , but the never mention it for obvious reasons.
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel". In other words - I am not here for this riff-raff scum, I am here for only gods chosen and treasured people, the lost sheep of ISRAEL!
But of course the riff -raff scum woman wasn't giving up as she persisted in begged the Messiah seed and son of David to do something about her "Demon possessed" daughter. (See Matthew 15:25)
But again, what was the response to the scummy riff-raff woman?
Well it was this lovely compliment;
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (See Matthew15:26). And the bread Jesus spoke of was of course was the wisdom of his forgiveness and teaching the so called "bread of life" that he wasn't going to waste on the scummy riff-raff's daughter. But riff-raff scummy woman said it was right to do so> "27 “Yes it is, Lord,” [right] she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Jesus realised riff-raff scummy Canaanite woman wasn't going anywhere and certainly wasn't going to shut the hell up so given the sticky situation Jesus spoke just 8 magical words and her wish was granted. And the day was saved.... all round.
Demon Possessed.....
....are words often bandied around often in the New Testament. But thicko Pastors and Chaplains, and priests of today (even high priests) that are far too bone idle to research, never mind understand, that this is a coverall term of phrase of that time. In those times one could be sick or mentally ill and be called Demon Possessed. As can anyone deemed to be rebellious or of another faith, go against the status quo, or simply be disobedient. And keep this in mind that both John the Baptist (the greatest prophet that ever lived according to Jesus) was said to be "demon possessed" as was Jesus said to be by members of his own family!
The scummy riff-raff Canaanite's daughter was simply Hellenised hence rebellious , hence she was "demon possessed".
Here endeth the lesson.
When Thomas says, "Let us also go," it is referring back to the verse before when Jesus says they will go to Lazarus. When he says, "that we may die with him," it is because the disciples are afraid that, if Jesus goes back to Judea, he will die, and the disciples will die with him. In the context of this conversation, it is clearly talking about physical death.
How do you know they/ Thomas are "referring back" to Jesus talking about returning to Jerusalem?
It is more than clear that the whole conversation is about Lazarus only and going back to Bethany where Lazarus is supposedly laying "dead". Jesus is not even talking about returning to the city Jerusalem at all in the whole story. I think its more than just a bit of a push to say that Thomas is talking about something else when they are discussing Lazarus's welfare status and when the whole chapter is concerned with the state of Lazarus. With no mention whatsoever about Jerusalem.
I think its more than a bit of a push to say that Thomas is talking about something else entirely when the whole chapter is concerned with the state of Lazarus only and the so called miracle. There are no cross purposes.
And here's a thought. Thomas who is said to be among the witnesses to this so called “dead” Lazarus miracle doubted the Christ himself had also raised from the dead, Why!? Hadn’t he witnessed Jesus himself raise a dead man!? Hadn’t the Christ continuously told his followers that he would rise from the dead? One has to ask why he doubted his masters resurrection after what he and the disciples been told and what he himself had witnessed?
Then, as I pointed out above:
The prodigal so was not “dead” was he? But his father said he was “dead” and he also said that he was “alive” again after being “dead”.
Then we notice that as quick as one can be raised from the “dead” one can it seems, also return to being “dead” when we look at the story of Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, Acts 5:1-11. Taken literally here we have two people just dropping down “dead” and getting buried, for no other reason than they hadn’t handed over money to god (the cause). And, to be cast out at such a crucial time must have been a terrifying punishment considering they believed that the “kingdom of god” was just around the corner. If they wasn't then we’d have to ask why all of those present were? Acts 5:11
This of course was not a case of people actually physically dying , it was a disciplinary action, a excommunication from the movement. Ananias, and Sapphira his wife had simply been banished to live among the dead. As I explained above, anyone not part of the Jesus movement were called the dead while those in the movement/inner circle were called the living and to be part the Jesus movement one had to be “raised from among the “dead” in a ritualistic ceremony.
And this also -to my mind at least- perfectly explains that very odd reply by Jesus to one of his disciples “let the dead” bury the dead". Luke 9:60 This is Jesus himself calling those not in the/his movement “THE DEAD”!
You see, its all to do with the terminology of the age.
Are these objections original with you, or did you get them from somewhere?
I wouldn't know is a short answer. If I remember correctly, what led me down this path of investigation into the so called raising of the "dead" man Lazarus was the casualness of which the whole affair takes place. No one is even surprised that that a supposed "dead" man was brought back to life with just a 3 spoken words ("Lazarus come forth" - John 11:43-44). And no one a offered a word of thanks. No one even complained the Jesus had let this man that it is said "Jesus loved " and" wept over", "die" in the first place?
Are you aware of any scholars who have the same objections? Names of particular scholars would be helpful.
I'm not. Although you may find it interesting that Essenes of Qumran are said to have "died" when excommunicated or left the sect of their own free will. Scholars are still debating as to whether or not Jesus was ever a member of the Qumran community.
Second question: Do you think that the author of John intended for his readers to think that Jesus had performed miracles, or was that not his intent? If not, what was his intent?
Well, when we look at the casualness in which of all these so called "miracles" are presented in all four gospels you think that these authors expected their readers to know exactly what they were conveying. Its interesting too that none of the other gospelers even mention this so called "miracle".
The amount of questions that just this one gospel story raises are never ending. Unless of course we understand what "dead" in these instances, then it becomes clearer.
" Let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9:60
Simply ask yourself, can an actual physically, biological lifeless "dead" person bury another person dead person? NO! is the answer. But this is what Jesus said to one of of his followers.
Then there is that enigmatic verse when one of the disciples are said to have said : "lets go that we may die with him" John 11:16 , him being Lazarus?
These, among other instances, in my opinion are the give away that "Dead" in these instances cannot mean a physical biological death. So what can it all mean? I believe the answer is simple. It means that anyone outside of the Jesus' movement/ following is considered spiritually "dead".
Good fair questions. Thank you.
wtf do you think Thomas meant when he said "“Let us also go, that we may die with Him"? John 11:16
Thomas [Θωμάς] aka Δίδυμος [Didymus]: both names imply being a twin, and may also refer to his personal dual personality, being both a faithful and ultimately valiant apostle while originally being doubtful. You would that had you studied Greek sufficiently.
And I am not talking or asking about the name of the disciple. Or what the name of the disciple means.
This has nothing to do at all with what I asked you. Stop evading the question.
What did this disciple mean when he said "“Let us also go, that we may die with Him"? John 11:16
YOU state above that Lazarus was biologically DEAD! YOU also tell us that " There are two types of death, "physical and spiritual".
SO which type of "DEATH" was it that Thomas Didymus wanting to undergo - a physical DEATH or a spiritual DEATH? and WHY? .
32-33 is the accepted age, Serge. But I believe he survived to cross.
--> @Stephen
Jesus didn't raise anyone at all from the "dead"?
fauxlaw: You have misrepresented what I said. Yes, Jesus did not cause the resurrection off several people who were dead, such as Lazarus, but he did raise them to life from death.
Nope these were nothing more than rituals as in a rite. These so called "raisings" were raisings (promotions in other words) to another level or degree in the Jesus movement.
Stephen:You see in these cases dead does not mean biologically "dead" as in ceased living, not breathing, heart stopped, brain dead, "DEAD" at all.It means nothing less than banished or exiled either voluntarily (apostasy) or forcefully ( excommunicated) , i.e. metaphorically "dead" to the movement. Anyone not in the movement or followers of Jesus were simply regarded as the "DEAD"!
fauxlaw: but he did raise them to life from death. Wrong. Biologically, these people who died and were raised from the dead by Christ, were dead, dead, dead. No longer living in the body, in physical, mortal flesh.
Nope they were not biologically "DEAD" as I and the BIBLE clearly proves and makes obvious.
Tell me ; wtf do you think Thomas meant when he said these words and why he said them? Jesus tells those that are with him that Lazarus is "dead" and and Thomas says " “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” John 11:16
Stephen: The prodigal son was not "dead" was he? But his father said he was "dead", and his father also said he he was "alive again" after being "dead", DIDN'T HE?
fauxlaw:There are two types of death, physical and spiritual.
Yes. OK even atheist understand that. Its called apostasy, as I have already explained above. As in people lose faith hence they suffer a "spiritual death". Stop taking us all for fkn mugs FFS!
And Lazarus had lost faith in the cause and the Jesus movement, he understood that "the mission" was doomed to fail and didn't fancy being executed (crucified) and so had a few other disciples hence "let us go die with him" John 11:16 . they were deserting in droves I.E. they were apostatising I.E. they were abandoning, renouncing, and forsaking their faith in Jesus' political ambitions. these disciples come to understand and accept that they stood no chance of defeating the might of Rome even with Jesus on the throne. This is why they chose to "die" in faith. And Incidentally. at the fall of Jerusalem in 69-70 AD , do you know who it was the handed over the High Priests vest and other temple regalia to Titus? Yes that's correct. it just happened to be a man with authority to do so and his name was JESUS!!!
And now it can be perfectly understood what Jesus meant when he said to his young disciple " let the DEAD bury the DEAD" (Luke 9.)
You know that I am right, you just can't admit nor accept it. I should imagine that its tough to accept - once the actual facts are pointed out to you - especially after all the hundreds of hours you must have spent reaching the degree of "high Priest" in the church of your chosen faith.
How many Christian denominations are there now? FKN hundreds! and after over 2000 years and multiple versions you still cannot even agree on a coherent version of the bible that removes ambiguity, doubt and confusion about what the hell went on in the ancient Roman province of Judaea in Jesus's time.
fauxlaw wrote: But, to satisfy for now, yes, Lazarus was dead, as in he ceased living,
The spirit left his body.
fauxlaw wrote: But Christ did not resurrect him. Jesus, himself, was not yet resurrected himself, and he was to be first, being the only perfect man ever living and dying on Earth, up to that point. Lazarus was again a living mortal man, and subsequently died later; we don't know when.
So according to your own belief as a "High Priest" , and your understanding of the New Testament story of the raising Of Lazarus, Jesus didn't raise anyone at all from the "dead"? not once. NOT the Son of the Widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17) NOR the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8)??. As they were suppose to have been raised from the dead 1st and 2nd respectively. AND ALL BEFORE THE RESURECTION OF JESUS and before Lazarus.
This is where you got it all correct, but you don't know why , do you?
When you said this :
fauxlaw wrote: Lazarus was dead, but did not resurrect
But then went and ruined it all for yourself by telling us this:
fauxlaw wrote: But, to satisfy for now, yes, Lazarus was dead, as in he ceased living,
You see in these cases dead does not mean biologically "dead" as in ceased living, not breathing, heart stopped, brain dead, "DEAD" at all.
It means nothing less than banished or exiled either voluntarily (apostasy) or forcefully ( excommunicated) , i.e. metaphorically "dead" to the movement. Anyone not in the movement or followers of Jesus were simply regarded as the "DEAD"!
When you understand this it should explain even to the thickest of Christians, why those disciples want to go "so that they may die with him". (John 11:16) It will explain why people just drop down dead as in the case regarding the husband and wife Acts .
The prodigal son was not "dead" was he? But his father said he was "dead", and his father also said he he was "alive again" after being "dead", didn't he?
When the disciple asked to have time off to bury his father, Jesus's reply was "let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9
Why? Because as I explain above the disciple's father wasn't part of the Jesus movement so he was regarded as "DEAD".
And here endeth the lesson faux.
fauxlaw wrote: Lazarus was again a living mortal man, and subsequently died later; we don't know when.
Indeed another one of the half told stories that I keep referring to and highlighting.
I did not reply as you expect because I am not going to engage a discussion which you are already convinced is not worth your time.
On the contrary. You have responded exactly as I expected , you always do. And a discussion about Jesus bringing a man back from the "dead" is certainly worth my time.
Lazarus was dead, but did not resurrect
Can you expand on that.? Was Lazarus dead as Jesus clearly says he was in the BIBLE and once he'd finally made up his mind about the physical state of Lazarus, and was he brought back to life after being dead, or not?
Or is it in truth as I put it in my OP? Does "dead " actually mean biologically and physically dead? Not breathing and loss of all life sustaining functions? Not in this case it doesn't.
Context and content is king
I agree context is important. So if you are of the belief that I have taken this whole story out of context, then right here is your opportunity to put it all into context for us. It would be extremely interesting to hear and understand the true meaning of this absolutely baffling, enigmatic half story coming from the mouth of a proclaimed "ordained high priest", such as yourself, faux.
So shooting the messenger is your own preference, then faux.
You assume that I haven't read the bible at all while claiming that you have "from cover to cover". And you also claim to have a "better understanding of the bible than most here". Yet you haven't once attempted to iron out for us any single part this strange story about a dead man, that after a delay of some FOUR days rather than the customary THREE was brought back to life, and those disciples that too wanted " to die"?
Ok try part 2.
Part (2)
On arrival back at Bethany the centre of Jesus’ operations, none of the women do seem too happy about the situation, so it appears on the face of it, they this woman didn’t expect any miracles that day either when she says:
“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 11:21.
What even causes her to believe that just by Jesus being there he could have saved her brother from a “sickness That initially that" wasn’t unto death”?
Maybe she didn't know the script?
We get to the “raising” of the man he loved.
And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
Yes , just like that, Jesus Raised him from the dead and off he went, not a please or thank you or how the hell did you do that?
So nothing seems to explain at all Jesus’ carelessness and indifference. It appears that Lazarus was closer to Jesus than even his disciples.
The Scriptures never mention if Lazarus was ever a disciple, it is never explained.
Why did Jesus love this person seemingly above all other never explained
Lazarus was on a hit list but never explained: Why? What had Lazarus done to deserve to die...again?
“Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
But The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus”.
John 12:9-11
He didn’t even attend the crucifixion and after being raised from the dead himself, that’s gratitude for you. Didn’t this man owe Jesus his life?
And another anomalies in the fact that, this once dead now raised person who Jesus so, so loved, is never ever mentioned in the scriptures again. He vanishes completely and altogether. Unless of course, like many other characters in these scriptures, Lazarus also has another name or two?
This has to be the strangest story in the Gospels: the “raising” of Lazarus.
From beginning to end it is vague, ambiguous anomalous and at one time just plain silly.
It has Jesus not being able to make up get his story straight or make up his mind and not seeming too bothered about this person he “loved”. It has suicidal followers and confused women and there are even hints that it all could have been a staged affair. And in my opinion for this story to be included in the scriptures it has to mean something other than the “miracle” the gospellers want us to believe it is.
The first thing any reader of the gospels will notice is that this “miracle” appears only in John’s Gospel although, it is now known that the story once appeared in Mark's gospel but has since been expunged. So here, right away, we have a why? And a why?
It begins with Lazarus falling sick and his sister Mary (the one who had anointed Jesus Earlier) sending word to Jesus of the “sickness” and who had decided it was a nice day and would take a stroll down to the river Jordan for the day which was about a mile away. John 11:1-3 KJV.
On arrival they blurted out that Lazarus “who he loved” was sick. Jesus’ response is somewhat dismissive with him saying Lazarus is not going to die and decided that there was no urgency to Lazarus’ “sickness” and decided to extend his holiday down by the river for another two days and even contemplated taking an excursion into Judea were it was known that the Jews wanted to “stone him”. 11:4 -8.
Jesus then makes comment about a man stumbling around in the dark
But then tells his disciples that Lazarus is asleep and then he tells them “plainly” that Lazarus Is now dead!
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
So above, so far we have Lazarus, sick but not in any critical danger of dying, Jesus not worrying too much about and tarrying & dallying a further “two days longer”. Lazarus“ asleep” and then, Lazarus is dead which is in complete contrary to what Jesus said at verse 11:4. He is not going to die.
How did Jesus even know that Lazarus was dead? When they were still at the river location?
Then there is this enigmatic and ambiguous statement from Jesus himself:
“And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him”.11:15. ?????
“And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there” ?
Why was he “glad”? And why for their sakes”?
“to the intent ye may believe”?
“Believe what”? This Is beginning to sound all put up in advance.
Still, they “go to him”, the now dead Lazarus.
But not before saying this enigmatic and outrageous statement:
““Let us also go, that we may die with him.”!!!!!? 11:16
Yes, you read that correctly. These apparent suicidal disciples or at least one, wanted to “die” with Lazarus!
Why? They were one minute having a nice relaxing tarry and a chat down by the river where there was no sense of urgency about his “sick” friend who he “loved”, next minute, this disciple suggests he and all those that were there should go die too.
And it simply has to be recognised; that there are absolutely no mentions or indications at this point that Jesus is even contemplating raising Lazarus from the dead! Or even spoke of raising the dead Lazarus or anyone else.
Does "dead " actually mean biologically and physically dead? Not breathing and loss of all life sustaining functions? Not in this case it doesn't.
Selling England by the Pound
PM Gordon Brown certainly did, Serge.😒
Ive been verbalizing more lately that a big reason we are on this earth is to figure out these relational virtues... love, forgiveness, generosity, and boundaries.
Not if you have read Genesis for yourself. We were created as a slave race. Genesis 2:15
I started a thread on the crucifixion here>>> https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/rp/jesus-wasnt-dead-when-they-took-him-down-from-the-cross
I notice you gave it a wide birth.
So lets take a closer look.
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost”. John 19:28-30.NKJV
What are the medical uses of hyssop?
As a medicinal herb, hyssop has soothing, expectorant and cough suppressant properties. The plant also includes the chemicals Thujone and Phenol, which give it antiseptic properties. Its high concentrations of Thujone and chemicals that stimulate the central nervous system can provoke epileptic reactions when taken in high-enough doses. .
We can only assume that this sponge soaked with the sleep (if not stupor) inducing narcotic drug Hyssop and vinegar was administered on a pole by one of those said to be standing at the foot of the cross. The soldiers it is said were too busy - “casting lots and gambling of the royal robes” “as it is written”- to be interested. No doubt it acted as a stimulant to Jesus’ nervous system and given the wounds from the nails the antiseptic would have begun to work immediately. Why had Jesus refused the first dose?
Could it be that administered too early it could have killed him, if not attended to right away or, he would have fallen asleep on the way to and before the execution? And were the words “I thirst” the coded message to give him the drug that would put him under?
And you still haven't told us what the sign of Jonah is?
fauxlaw wrote:I think that is a falascious idea that suffering was supposed to end.
Stephen wrote: Revelation 21:14 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”.
Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
Let me guess , Faux, " they are more mistranslations". and that I need to understand the ancient Greek imports.
fauxlaw wrote: Wrong guess. Not sloppy translation this time, but your own sloppy reference. But to clarify, suffering does not end for the wicked; its does for the righteous upon the last judgment, which may only end at death for the very last left in mortal life after Christ's return, or sometime after.
Yes . Got me. It was sloppy of me to rely on memory alone.
It was typo and should have read REVELATION 21:4. - that's Twenty one : Four. NOT 21: 14 - fourteen.
So lets try that one more time.
fauxlaw wrote:I think that is a falascious idea that suffering was supposed to end.
Stephen replied. Rvelation21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (NIV)
fauxlaw wrote: But to clarify, suffering does not end for the wicked;
How convenient. Now who's being sloppy?
So tell me, - the wicked are gone and are suffering no end (where ever they are?) -even though Jesus has paid that ransom and died - by all Christian accounts., who's tears are being "wiped away"? and who will not ever die? AND why were those "righteous and faithful" ones suffering in the first place? Why do the "righteous and faithful" have to die at all?
Or you could just accept it for what it is: nothing more than a symbolic story of hope in what it will be like one day
I think that is a falascious idea that suffering was supposed to end.
Revelation 21:14 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
Romans 8:18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
Let me guess , Faux, " they are more mistranslations". and that I need to understand the ancient Greek imports.
I disagree that God can ever be blamed for our suffering, regardless of severity. Contrary to some who believe that God is the total cause of everything, good or bad, which occurs to us, I believe God is almost never the total cause of anything which occurs.
Well you would disagree. LOL considering that by gods own admissions he creates evil.
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. Isaiah 45:7
fauxlaw wrote: Making people drop dead - sorry, I know that has happened, but I don't recall a specific instance of it,
Do you mean personally or biblically?
fauxlaw wrote:I mean personally
Ok. Do you not recall a specific instance biblically i.e. an instance in the bible where people have simply dropped down dead?. YES Or NO?
biblical interpretations are likely to be reinterpreted with more than an ounce of subjective bias.
10/10
You are caught in the trap of poor translation from the Greek Septuagint; [.....................]That is not to be misunderstood by a clever meme, such as "giving up the ghost." No, the Greek for a ghost, is phantom: ϕἀντασμα, which is not in the Septuagint.
Mathew 27:50 has it: And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. Mark 15:37.
And the Greek would be Phantasma. But you can wrangle with the "interpretation" excuse all day long. In ancient Greek the word phantom means to make seen, as far as I remember. Did anyone witness/ SEE the/A Phantom of Jesus depart from his supposed "dead " body? I think not as this event would surely have been recorded. And remember, these ancients believed they knew the the difference, between what they a ghost, a phantom and a spirit. and
Like I maintain, giving up the spirit / ghost could simply mean he gave up and had lost his faith in the "father". Or mores the case , Jesus had lost faith in the cause of the movement. And the more I read about it , the more it sounds like a deadly plot that had almost backfired.
do you discount every word that was said about him in the Gospels?
No, just most of what has been said about him. You know same well what I believe,
I think it means that just as Jonah was dead and came back to life, so too Jesus will die and come back to life.
But he wasn't Dead" was he ? He was praying inside the fish. Which is no comparison to a real biologically dead person that can't pray.
Jonah 2 Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the belly of the fish, saying,
“I called out to the Lord, out of my distress".
Sounds very much alive to me. Unless "Dead" don't actually mean biologically "dead" in these circumsatnces?
Do you think those two terms are mutually exclusive?
?? which two?
Nope. He was dead. Why is that so hard?
You have no evidence that Jesus was dead when they took him down from the cross : " and he gave up the ghost" (Mark 15:37) could mean a few things such as he lost his faith because his "father" had "forsaken" him . TWICE!!!
So what was "the sign" of Jonah, Faux?
He rejected the drink.
I Doubt it considering he didn't want to go through with it in the first place.. Maybe because that it was too early to take it and would have worked off if taken too soon.
But then we have:
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost”. John 19:28-30.NKJV
What are the medical uses of hyssop? As a medicinal herb, hyssop has soothing, expectorant, and cough suppressant properties. The plant also includes the chemicals Thujone and Phenol, which give it antiseptic properties. Its high concentrations of Thujone and chemicals that stimulate the central nervous system can provoke epileptic reactions when taken in high-enough doses. .We can only assume that this sponge soaked with the sleep (if not stupor) inducing narcotic drug Hyssop and vinegar was administered on a pole by one of those said to be standing at the foot of the cross. The soldiers it is said were too busy - “casting lots and gambling of the royal robes” “as it is written”- to be interested. No doubt it acted as a stimulant to Jesus’ nervous system and given the wounds from the nails the antiseptic would have begun to work immediately. Why had Jesus refused the first dose? Could it be that administered too early it could have killed him, if not attended to right away or, he would have fallen asleep on the way to and before the execution? And were the words “I thirst” the coded message to give him the drug that would put him under?
Debby Wrote: I am a Catholic and well versed in the Bible.
I do, Serge.
The reason he didn't get his legs broken and why that matters is that it completes a prophecy from the Old Testament.
Or because he was in a coma or unconscious- but alive.
Yes, his will be Matthew if my memory serves me. he had a terrible habit of reaching for his trusty Old Testament at every given chance
attempting desperately to tie Jesus back to the OT prophecies.
Have Christians ever considered what it was that Jesus was administered before he was put on the cross? It was a proper little cocktail of potions with medicinal properties.
Yes! Even Pilate was amazed at how quick Jesus had “died”. Mark 15:44
And it was awfully convenient that he is said to have “died” just before he was about to have his legs broken.
The Apostle John said that the two crucified alongside Jesus were still alive six hours after they were crucified so “the soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other” to make sure they would die before the Sabbath. John 19:31-34.
Could the disciples simply have been wrong or mores the case, duped into believing Jesus was dead? They had got it wrong on another occasion when they were convinced Paul was dead but wasn’t. Acts 14
And there's not a mention of any of them being present at the crucifixion so how would they know either way.
Why then, did Jesus die so quickly on the cross?
Why did they spear his side if he was dead?
Did Jesus even predict that he would be "dead" for three days?
Christians like to latch onto what is written in Matthew 12:40 as some kind of “sign” or clue not to mention “proof” given to the Elders as to what lay ahead for him. But they should read that closely, because it mentions nothing about death at all.
Jesus – so say the gospels- was offered a drink of vinegar/wine on a sponge when he seemed to complain of thirst. Why he should then suddenly die after sucking on, or even sniffing this sponge and after saying few words, words - which are also in contention? The thing about the vinegar soaked sponge is that if anything, it would have had completely the opposite effect on the human body. It was used on slave galleys as a temporary stimulant to revive flagging rowers, it had the same effect as smelling salts.
So again it appears just like all of these others gospels, it leaves gaping big holes in the commentary and we are left with yet another half story.
Love the avatar.
It has the towns name underneath the Lion. can't see it unless its opened up in a new tab. Old gaffer Jason left a few weeks ago and new one had them made up himself.
