You might think that this is a silly concern but I seek your enlightenment. And I would appreciate being treated gently in the spirit of this Easter season...
I think that "silly" is a little bit light as far as I am concerned.
Why do you ask? Are you wondering if YOU should be cremated?
OK, a serious concern...
No, I have already made my final arrangements which include a coffin...
Probably not in a way that anyone could see him, but who knows.
Most of our bodies don't last long after burial, cremated or not, and many of us still believe in a a life after death.
All I know is that He didn't do it by himself -- cause He was dead.
I say yes. The resurrection was an event outside the normal path of life and death(that is why it is described as a miracle)and was to show the victory of Christ over death.
Destruction of the body failing to prevent renewed life is found in several ancient religions.
The lid of my coffin won't be sealed just in case...
There you go. smile to ya
Now I have to get some sleep & hope I can resurrect myself in a couple hours.
What does the tale tome say, Tobr? Surely there's some passage covering it, and some denomination that takes it literally, no?
Richard, if you know what's coming your way on resurrection day, you'll hide out in that coffin.
Since the event was supernatural and everything outside of the natural is possible in the supernatural particularly when all powerful deities are involved I'm guessing that it wouldn't have been a big deal.
I'm reading How Jesus became God by Bart Ehrman (interesting)
Maybe I should upgrade my coffin for a longer stay then with internet access, cable, a wet bar. You know, that sort of thing...
If Santa and the Easter Bunny can magically appear out of thin air each year, then I don't see why Jesus would have a problem.
This post was edited by haydayhayday on Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 9:09
Jesus was only one of the many people crucified and left hanging for dogs to eat that he probably never made it as far as a crematorium.
The usual story is just a parable, not a factual reality.
Dude, the physical body begins to decompose once it stops working... as in dies.
These are single-use-only, disposable shells that neatly house our energy, our consciousness. How they are disposed of post living is rather immaterial, really.
"I'm reading How Jesus became God by Bart Ehrman (interesting)"
Somewhere around here, (Attack on Easter or something like that?) I'd posted a link to an NPR interview with Bart Ehrman about this book he just wrote.
He's an academic religious scholar.
"GROSS: OK, so one of the things you look at is typically what happened to the bodies of men who were crucified. And when you try to answer that question, what answers do you come up with?
EHRMAN: You know, this is one of the things that really startled me in doing my research for this. I actually changed my views about this question about whether there was an empty tomb three days after Jesus' death, and the reason I changed my mind about it is because I started to look into what we know about Roman practices of crucifixion.
Now it's interesting that we never have any literary descriptions in any writing at all. These no description of how exactly crucifixion was performed. But there are references in ancient Greek and Latin texts that refer to people who have been crucified, and what is striking is that in virtually every instance, we're told that the person was left on the cross in order to rot away and to be eaten by scavengers so that the punishment of crucifixion wasn't simply the torture involved, it also was the horrible effect of not being given a proper burial.
GROSS: The desecration of the body after death.
EHRMAN: Absolutely, the body was to desecrated, and this was scandalous to ancient people. But the Romans did it this was as a disincentive for crime. So it's not just that you're going to go through a horrible death; your body is going to rot in the cross, and scavengers are going to eat it."
Try reading this from Bart to the little kiddies on Sunday and see if that affects their attitude toward Easter. Better to stick with the Bunny and Resurrection?
Actually, they asked Pilate for the body and He was taken down, not left for the dogs. At great risk to himself (he was Jewish and it was Passover. Touching blood at any point was unclean, but during such a holy season? Bad news!) Joseph of Arimetha took Jesus' body off the cross. With Nicodemus. Then, placed the body in his own personal grave. So how it that a parable? I'm missing something. Are you saying, none of that really happened? Not that it would make a difference in my personal faith, but it would give me pause to think. Totally an academic question.
What do I believe about Him being cremated? They'd try and try to light a fire and the wood would've been too wet or they couldn't get a spark or the fire would've raged and His body been unharmed. Not really! just kidding! But God can do anything, even stop a cremation.
Who knows how the apostles would have had to spin his death and resurrection if he had been cremated.
There are so many different death customs - funeral pyres, boats, leaving the body for birds, ice floes, etc. It's a good thing Jesus lived in a time and place that left the body in a tomb/catacomb to decay.
Well....if zombies and vampires need a body..........
Like Labrea indicated upthread,all powerful deities are beyond the laws that govern the universe.
If you can create the world in six days,..making a man whole again even from ash,...easy peasey! :)
yes asleep it is Robin or Rob. female, though.
"Totally an academic question.".
Then, why don't you go look at my NPR link? Academic answers to academic questions.
(Don't believe everything you read in the bible, by the way. It's not an academic book.)
I asked pidge because she suggested the parable idea. She's knowledgeable and a learned person, who happens to hold a completely different view than I on this topic. I asking her if she knew something I hadn't seen/read/heard before. Why bother with little ol' me Hay? Shouldn't you be out dancing anyhow?
Maybe Hay doesn't dance on Good Friday and will spend the day in quiet penitential meditation.
Yes Hay I read your post and bought the book based on it ! Thanks it's interesting reading!
rob, I think all those stories about loaves and fishes and a dove landing on Mary’s shoulder and the virgin birth and the resurrection are parables intended to promote the view that Jesus was some kind of god. I have not read the book Hay mentions but I’ve read other stuff that does talk about the Romans leaving the crucified body to rot and be eaten. The folks hanging around at the time would surely have a vested interest in creating a better story in order to influence their followers and gather new ones. None of it is literal.
I hadn't read or heard that before. Interesting. I'll have to check it out. Thank you for answer.
I tend not to believe anything in the bible. But I can't see it as a total, complete work of fiction. Maybe some or most of it is based on some real events. Don't believe the ressurection part though.
Religion can be a good thing for people in their time of need. But often I see people use it as a crutch, or a screen. It's the people who go to church every Sunday and maybe another evening during the week, but continue to lie, cheat on a spouse, etc., that truly turn me off to religion.
I also take issue with people who think God has a hand in every single thing in life. Like:
I helped a friend get a job where I work. She was fired after five months. She stated to me: "God gives and God takes away."
Huh? So, then, God got her the job and then made her get fired? No credit to me and no responsiblity to her? It was all God's doing. LOL.
Somehow I think the fact that the Jews insist on immediate burial and Pilate was under orders to keep them pacified might work against the idea that the body was left to rot on the cross. I thought I had heard every theory possible about the crucifixion but that is a new one. Such a thing would have been a spur to the insurrection the Romans were attempting to avoid. They were spread pretty thin at the time.
If nothing else, the Romans were very good record keepers and the crucifixion of a Hebrew Rabbi was recorded and turning the body over to Joseph of Arimathea for burial was also recorded. Other things get a bit hazy since they were not in the official record.
sleepless, I have no quarrel with those believe that Jesus was entombed literally or even that his physical body lifted itself off into “heaven.” I just think it’s preposterous.
It makes a nice story for some people and permits them to think of Jesus as a savior. It also permits them to think that THEY will also have a “life after death” and even that they, too, will someday rise from the dead. It’s an understandable desire even it really is preposterous.
Pidge, I'm sorry that I won't be seeing you in the great beyond...
Edited to remove off topic content.
This post was edited by asleep_in_the_garden on Tue, Apr 22, 14 at 0:23
If nothing else, the Romans were very good record keepers and the crucifixion of a Hebrew Rabbi was recorded and turning the body over to Joseph of Arimathea for burial was also recorded.
There are no records of his death, burial or ressurection. If there were there wouldn't be two sites that claim to be the burial site.
I doubt I’ll be missed in anyone’s fanciful dreams!
Well, if I rise out of my enhanced coffin you can have it...
This post was edited by asleep_in_the_garden on Tue, Apr 22, 14 at 0:19
Where did you get that idea? Other than the Bible, there's really no documentation that this particular Jesus ever really existed.
mom, that is an incorrect statement. Historians of that time wrote about Jesus and the earliest Christians. Whether one chooses to believe that He is God as He claims, His existence has never been in question.
Josephus was a little child when (which?) Jesus was preaching. Hist histories have been scrutinized and many Christians scholars shy away from citing some of the passages (all 2 actually) that he wrote about (which Jesus)
They shy away because some copies of his manuscripts contain these passages & some don't.
as a curiosity Barabbas name was also Jesus & Barabbas is a curious name to begin with in such a story as it means son of the father .
Josephus like to write a lot about some of the most mundane characters you would think he would have written more about someone so prominent as an anointed one. What he did write is curious for it has the rflavor of a Christian writing about Jesus rather than a law observant Jew.
Most prominent Christina scholars shy away from the Josephus mention.
Baron your posts is almost word for word what a previous poster said on here that would be a curious resurrection!
Betty, have you risen from being "crucified" here for your conservative views and are now the Baron? BTW, love the new handle, sounds very forceful...
I also love the new handle--it’s so foppish!
I see lace cuffs, a powdered wig, perfumed handkerchiefs.
Now my handle could not be more mundane--named for a bird that everyone thinks is a pest, and I’ll bet the baron does think of me that way.
As for the “historical Jesus,” a friend of mine just posted on FB that he likes the story about how he “loafs and fishes.”
Thank you Labrea for stating fact not fantasy. Mrsk and sleepless might want to do some background work. The Romans kept few records and Josephus' work is not authentic in its entirety.
Looks like Mrsk just couldnt stay away even after being banned.
Rules apparently aren't for everyone based on those who resurrected themselves. Let's see if you can compete with Paulines as to how many different names you can post under. You have a lot of catching up to do.
Might be an honor to banned at some point, just sayin'...
Posted by tobr24u z6 RI (My Page) on
Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 9:06
I have a question.
A first name was just referenced and I do not recall anyone other than Labrea divulging their first name.
Has the poster referenced ever divulged their first name?
I'm pretty sure a few years ago a poster here posted a picture of who they represented to be mrskjun on this forum.
I'm pretty sure that poster is still posting, and for doing that--I can't believe it.
SO where does anyone get off using a name, whether it is correct or not, to refer to a poster here that does not use that name in their moniker and has not divulged that name, and referred to themselves by that name?
That is exactly what I am talking about, Mylab--people that are creepy enough to go looking for information about a poster outside what they share here and them come back and post names, photos, and make references to that information and make wrongful assumptions about information--second hand in some cases, and post it about another poster.
We are here to discuss topics and interact, not taunt one another about our participation, referring to people by their names they do not give here, or to information not giving here.
So, why is this going on?
It is going on because beneath the surface we love each other, so please call me Richard whenever you please...
Posted by tobr24u z6 RI (My Page) on
Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 10:02
Okay, Richard, since you don't incur the wrath of others because of your opinions, it is probably safe for you to share your name. ;)
But if you ever do, look out because your family members, , and all sorts of information will be snooped out and referred to on this forum, speculation about your finances and your life, and there will be no assurance of accuracy, just the opposite of that "love" which I wish was indeed, shared.
I will say your posts and jocular attitude are one of the better parts of this forum. :)
Yes, on her GW personal page, for all to see. My name is Betty . . .
and now it's not. So maybe it's an indication not to use their name?
A few years ago Mrskjun posted a picture of herself on the conversations side when posters were asked to. She didn't have a problem with it then.
Demi, anyone concerned about their information getting out should be careful. In this case all one has to do is a google search of "mrskjun" and lots of her own personal information is there including her name, address and photos. It is no one's fault but her own if people can easily identify her.
So maybe it's an indication not to use their name?
The GW personal page which lists her name hasn't been edited to eliminate that information, so I don't understand the hand wringing over information freely offered, and allowed to remain.
When a name is freely and publicly offered, it would be completely appropriate to use it. It might even be considered in poor taste, or classless, to avoid using a proper name... no?
I would think if someone were that concerned about anonymity... or concerned about the reaction they might elicit from others... they wouldn't publicly offer their real name or any other information about themselves.
Call me whatever you like... just don't call me late for chocolate desert! :-)
Oh, and stay off my heels... I might stop really fast, and you wouldn't want to bump into me.
I'm not nearly that important or special that I would think some stranger on a gardening site who didn't like my comments or attitude would actually spend time locating and chasing me down in a personal way. Good grief!
I don't think any bounty hunters are after me... are they? No. No, I don't think so... I've been fairly good lately. ;-)
On to other, more important things... like things of interest... the OP and junk...
"Whether one chooses to believe that He is God as He claims, His existence has never been in question."
Hmm... I questioned and dismissed the notion as being a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" kind of issue. He might have existed, and he might not have existed.
And if he did, he might have just been another wanderer, panhandling his way across the dessert, spreading a message that the average class of people could relate to.
A lot of names and personas appear in writings, historical and otherwise. Doesn't necessarily mean they were all real.
If you have faith then the glaring discrepancies in the resurrection stories in the various gospels mean little & if you have faith then the convoluted current idea of who Jesus is & is not is incidental!
We had a rabbi in NY menachem schneerson who is no longer with us. Some in Chabad say he is merely hidden some say he will return as the messiah (with an understanding of Messiah that is possibly different than many who already believe he is Messiah )
A messiah& the Messiah are'nt quite the same
As an outsider he was an old Rabbi from Brooklyn who the news papers reported as deceased (multiple news sources & a telco used display of thousands of mourners carrying a coffin make it history it was years ago,!
Faith in something else makes the funeral & a grave incidental an unimportant detail. As a different kind of reality that is still being worked out daily goes on.
Councils went on for hundreds of years after a physical Jesus was no longer present & at those gatherings his nature & very being we're created over & over . Trinitarian evolution, true god. & true man at all times of one substance with the father all this evolved and was fought over politicized at times. Jesus really didn't go around saying I am the messiah! Such talk & more talk & still more talk & hair splitting & Greek & Latin & Egyptian sensibilities all but transformed an itinerant apocalyptic preacher. Schisms occurred people died or were banished! Time passed and the term Messiah anointed became Christ! Glossed over people confused the titles for a possible simple historical figure encrusted with a lot if meanings, needs desires. Still it shouldn't matter if you have faith but faith is not biography !
Now Elijah raised a widows son from the dead, Elijha parted the waters of the Jordan, multiplied oil & flour, was taken up into Heaven!
Elisha raised a child from the dead, multiplied loaves & fed a crowd
What a great guy but unlike Jesus
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
So many Miracles.
Oh he also healed lepers!
They say that idiot Cindy Sherman can raise the dead & she also has multiplied pasta I kid you not.
This post was edited by labrea on Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 18:53
Yawl can call me Veggie, Mr. King sounds a bit formal.
•Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 10:18
"or maybe it's an indication not to use their name?
The GW personal page which lists her name hasn't been edited to eliminate that information, so I don't understand the hand wringing over information freely offered, and allowed to remain."
I imagine if a poster wishes to be called by zir given name, ze will use it on the forums, i.e., "Nancy." It doesn't make sense to choose a moniker for the forums if one doesn't expect people to use that moniker or some inoffensive version of the same. To purposefully use a given name when a moniker is available is rude, IMO, unless you are considered a friend. When it's used in an "in your face" manner, as above, it's out of line. IMO. I haven't a clue why a poster would put zir given name on the page, maybe for more intimate conversations like arranging trades or sharing information of some sort. None of my business.
elvis, the given name is posted as general information for all to see.
If one does not want a given name used, there's an edit function that's easy to use. To date the name has not been edited.
To put one's name where it can be easily found puts the responsibility back on the person who made that decision to reveal the name. Most know that you cannot control what others do in a public forum, and providing one's name makes it fair game to be addressed with that name.
Edited to add: I view the situation as similar to wearing a name tag at a public meeting and then being offended when someone addresses you by your first name.
This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 20:01
I wonder, Elvis and Demi, what is your opinion on a poster who was banned and then decided to sneak back in under another name, even?
Lets say it was Lily. Do you think she would be doing something right, wrong? Would you consider it to be a negative character trait?
How would you feel if Lily under her new name began to respond to either or both of your posts in the same manner she used to, not all the time but just every once in awhile?
I know that you Demi are big on personal responsibility and not taking what doesnt belong to you nor doing the obviously wrong, sneaky, dishonest thing.
Would you think that the circumstance I just described regarding Lily's return would be something which in any way you would ever defend? Would you think Elvis was doing the wrong thing if she said "Hi, Lily!" In a response to something the name it was suspected ( and not denied) Lily posted under?
I am interested in hearing your position on this idea of what Lily might do?
I addressed this on one of the other threads, Mylab. Tobr and Jill both posted related comments there also, maybe they will dig it up for you. Mylab, you are exhibiting an excessive amount of interest in this. Why not just email the administrators and get it off your chest? I'm not going to do it for you. I do remember that part of my post was me asking "What difference does it make?" Jill went on about honor, etc.
I didnt read those other threads. But I have your answer.
Thanks for being so frank about it, most would quibble.
I imagine if a poster wishes to be called by zir given name, ze will use it on the forums, i.e., "Nancy."
You are probably right. Many don't use their given names but those that make them public by posting them on their profiles or using them on their posts probably don't mind and there is nothing nefarious behind it.
RE: Don't do this to me!!! clip this post email this post what is this?
see most clipped and recent clippings
Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Sun, Mar 23, 03 at 6:13
Hi Cathi, welcome. 10 acres huh? Oh the possibilities!!!!!!!
You won't run short of ideas on this site.
Mylab--I couldn't care less about the things you asked me about Lily and names. I don't waste my time with such nonsense.
It's not my forum and it's not yours.
It's not my decision, not my business, and not yours, either.
And Elvis is absolutely right--to use a name not used here on this forum is rude, as was posting the photo here on threads.
It is a form of aggression and exposure and says much more about the person that takes the time to consume themselves with personal information about another poster and posting it or referencing here on this forum, that it would ever say about the poster they are referencing.
I must remind some of you that you are all off topic & I would like it to stop!
I would like the administrator to remove your posts!
labrea wants to resurrect this thread!
In keeping with the Easter narrative...
to use a name not used here on this forum is rude, as was posting the photo here on threads
She has referred to herself with her given name and others have referred to her with it as well on threads across gardenweb roses, etc.). She didn't seem to mind. I do not see where it is/was done to insult her or maliciously.
As for the photo, I don't know the one you are referring to but the one I mentioned was the one that Mrsk posted herself on Bill's thread.
I am not sure what the outrage is about.
I think we're confusing two things. MrsK was Betty. Sure. But baron hasn't listed any name.
I subscribe to the thought, if one hasn't used their name, they don't want it used (I can think of precise instances where posters changed their name, and then people began calling them by name and it infuriated them! they weren't banned either). If they do, feel free to use it. Obviously, I don't care since my moniker is my name. It's nice to be able to be anonymous some place, some time. Why someone chooses that need not be for nefarious reasons.
OK, and if you prefer you can call Big Dick, Little Dick, or Dicky-Do...
I prefer Big Dick.....:-)
Oh please, who cares.
I don't know if care is a concept that is playing out here!
Manners certainly are not. As for a sudden opportunistic fealty to obeying der rules, really? :)
I appreciate knowing who Baron is but don't think the worse of her for coming back to rejoin the discussion. I haven't been banned --yet, but GardenWeb is too great a collection of communities to just let go because of a discussion that heated up too much for my own good. Anyway, coming back behind a new name is literally as old as GardenWeb,
Speaking of, where IS Lily? She's a beekeeper, and I think "abeille" MIGHT be available...
I want to know if Lily’s daughter ran in the Boston Marathon this year. I knew that she did last year and was eager to go back and participate in “Boston Strong”!
This thread makes no sense to me whatsoever. Orthodox Jewish law precludes the cremation of the body. For Christians, who believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead, what difference should it make if he were cremated or not--dead is DEAD. Jesus had a burial in keeping with Jewish law. What one believes happened latter is a matter of personal belief and faith.
Pidge, I wondered exactly the same thing. It seems to me though I might not remember correctly, other family members ran that day too - son in laws, maybe?
I though of Lily on the day - and often, when reading a response, think to myself, "I can only imagine what Lily would have to say about THAT!" *LOL*
However, Im quite sure there have been lots of responses which would have inspired a line or link from Mrsk, too - all's fair, after all!
The OP: "RE: If Christ had been cremated could he have risen?"
For a person of faith, there is no "if." So for many it's a non-question.
There is a difference between belief and faith.
Many people of faith, as I am, do have occasional doubts.
As noted, Christ asked if God had forsaken him.
Cremation and resurrection is a non issue for the God that so many Christians believe in.
Leslie Hazleton, who has written about Mohammad, has interesting points to make about belief, faith, and doubt, which elucidate the truth to many false claims by atheists about those that believe in a higher power.
Is Doubt Essential to Faith
The following is from Wiki, under "Jesus in historical records".
"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines. Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time ��" more so than any of his contemporaries ��" with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions". Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible. Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence. Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"."
There are literally millions of hits on this and related topics. I have been aware of the discussion since I was a child so it isn't something just recently dredged up by flailing believers desperate to salvage their faith. There is a massive grouping of recent articles that deny the existence of any historical data but I have a tendency to read a bit too much hysteria in them to give them much credence. Admittedly, I have not read all of them and one may even be the last word in the discussion but frankly, most of what I did read didn't encourage me to go further.
If you want to read further, God knows there is plenty to keep you occupied for decades or longer just on the historical evidence. If you are talking about the relationship of beliefs in various religions, I suggest you put aside a couple of lifetimes to cover everything written. Just follow the links. Of course if you already have your conclusion, it is just a waste of time.
Everyone should know by now, Tobr, it's not the size of the boat... it's definitely the motion of the ocean. ;-)
Oh, if it were only as simple as thinking up and changing anonyms when sent away for misbehavior... but it's not. Someone would really have to feel the need to sneak back in, and know how to do so under an assumed IP in order to gain access once again, and then... to act in such a way as to not be identified as the original that was banned for their poor behavior in the first place... not an easy feat as everyone has their own unique, little style.
Which is why I can't imagine that someone can't just pick up their toys and go home for a while when things get out of hand... instead of feeling some need to get their rat on. Is it really worth it to lose the dynamic that's been built up over time? I think not.
I'm a grown woman... I can't even imagine running to the playground monitor every time someone else looked at me sideways! Good grief!
What are we talking about? Oh yeah... rising out of the ashes...
"There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings."
Those disagreement start even before the Gospels are written as Paul is assailed on his teachings about Jesus & in turn Paul mocks others beliefs about Jesus in his letters which predate the writing of the Gospels."
That a historical specific Jesus later referred to as the Messiah/Christ (what does that term mean in period context as taught by whom how is it different with each passing century schism & digression) existed is more than probable.
That so many teaching about him his nature/s have been the source of endless squabbles among believers when he left no written records himself.
Paul's letter to the Romans predates the first written Gospels and it speaks to a number of prominent Roman Christ followers but does not mention Peter who would still have been alive at the time and was supposedly in Rome as it's first Bishop. The supposed origin of the Papal lineage.
That he is writing to them says that there were followers of a message in the Capital of a potentially hostile Empire. We already know that Jerusalem was hostile as Paul was a former proponent of the hostility but now addresses himself as the Slave of Jesus Christ.
Paul's letter to the Roman's is in a way an introduction to what he is teaching in the Churches he has founded.
Works written well over a hundred years ago by FC Baur. state that there was a rift between Peter & Paul. as well as Paul & James .
It was thought that at the time Paul's leanings were anti Jewish/Torah . Paul was preaching that gentiles could be made right with God by not converting to Judaism.
Paul's letters & writing make no mention of an empty tomb as a smoking gun for the resurrection.
There were squabbles over what kind of body was present when Jesus was resurrected.
“You foolish person!” (1 Corinthians 15:35��"36) was Paul's response to those who were already saying things differently than he or questioning the historical Jesus continued presence in the world after his execution.
These views persisted into a number of early Christian sects particularly among the Gnostic who didn't require a physical body to be resurrected for Jesus to be both Messiah & exalted to the right hand of the father.
There were early Christians that believed Jesus only became son of God at his Resurrection & exaltation.
These are the growing nature of a Jesus The messiah (what does that mean) & the Christ what does that mean)
Paul write Jesus
Who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh who was appointed SON OF GOD in power accord to the Spirit of Holiness by his resurrection from the dead.
(that's an early creed a statement of belief & faith)
The spirit of Holiness rather than the Holy Spirit lets historians place it as Semitic in origin by that structure.
The statement tells us Jesus was human (he is only gone about 20 years when it is written) it also says that he was not just the messiah for in those days "the messiah did not denote God necessarily"
Again this is a letter to the Romans and is saying hey I'm Kosher because I'm told no where else in Paul's writing is he concerned about the lineage of Jesus in order to establish his place as exalted son of God.
This post was edited by labrea on Sat, Apr 26, 14 at 9:12