"Would Christianity change fundamentally if I said, “Jesus was only in a coma.” No. If Jesus was in a coma it doesn’t invalidate the Sermon on the Mount. The symbolism of the Christ would remain in tact."
Isn't the description of the water and the blood pouring out separately telling us the body is dead? And after that telling us this is true and witnessed and important?
How can Christ be the firstborn of the dead if he didn't die?
Even more pointed in Revelation 2: 8 “And to the [d]angel of the church in Smyrna write,
‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:
Should we call the First and the Last a liar or the very least uninformed? Christianity is not Christianity without the death and resurrection. You can of course believe in God as you choose, but not believing in the death and resurrection will not keep the symbol of Christ in tact...perhaps this text may spell it out as soundly as possible:
There is not any mention of the enemy of God and man, from the beginning of this post and through the comments. It is as if God is viewed as both good and bad, blesser and curser, creator and destroyer, Savior and condemner. The Bible teaches that only a fool says there is no God. Therefore, it could be assumed foolish to ignore man's mutual enemy of God. One of the foundations of Christianity includes man created with free will. An individual chooses their object/focus of faith. Faith is not absent our will/choice. God and man's enemy is as much a fundamental part of Christian teaching as the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is helpful to be a scholar of ancient greek but we can begin to grasp the fundamentals from those who are proficient. Was an absence of the adversary intentional and/or will the foe be a part of an upcoming article?
"Would Christianity change fundamentally if I said, “Jesus was only in a coma.” No. If Jesus was in a coma it doesn’t invalidate the Sermon on the Mount. The symbolism of the Christ would remain in tact."
What fact is trying to be solidified with this detailed witness text? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19%3A31-37&version=NKJV
Isn't the description of the water and the blood pouring out separately telling us the body is dead? And after that telling us this is true and witnessed and important?
In this text:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1%3A1-8&version=NKJV
How can Christ be the firstborn of the dead if he didn't die?
Even more pointed in Revelation 2: 8 “And to the [d]angel of the church in Smyrna write,
‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:
Should we call the First and the Last a liar or the very least uninformed? Christianity is not Christianity without the death and resurrection. You can of course believe in God as you choose, but not believing in the death and resurrection will not keep the symbol of Christ in tact...perhaps this text may spell it out as soundly as possible:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A12-58&version=NKJV
There is not any mention of the enemy of God and man, from the beginning of this post and through the comments. It is as if God is viewed as both good and bad, blesser and curser, creator and destroyer, Savior and condemner. The Bible teaches that only a fool says there is no God. Therefore, it could be assumed foolish to ignore man's mutual enemy of God. One of the foundations of Christianity includes man created with free will. An individual chooses their object/focus of faith. Faith is not absent our will/choice. God and man's enemy is as much a fundamental part of Christian teaching as the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is helpful to be a scholar of ancient greek but we can begin to grasp the fundamentals from those who are proficient. Was an absence of the adversary intentional and/or will the foe be a part of an upcoming article?
ha! I was just having a discussion about scientism vs religion this past weekend. Very well put.