RESUSCITATION.

[JP Cusick]

According to the given info in the Biblical research of the Gospels then Jesus did NOT die on the cross as He only appeared to be dead and the guards took Him down early and Jesus was later resuscitated, as in brought back to life.

The evidence is in many text places, as in the other two persons being crucified were still alive and had their legs broken, John 19:30-34, and verse 34 the spear in Jesus side draining "water" was draining the fluid from His lung (or off heart or both) which saved His life.

Later Jesus in particularly went and demonstrated to the disciples that He was NOT a spirit but a real and living person with a wounded physical body by eating food and by having Thomas touch the holes in His hands and in His side, and that means Jesus did not die on the cross.

If it was some kind of magical or mystical resurrection as is usually claimed then His body would have been healed but no. As like if some one had their head cut off then to resurrect that person then their head would still be cut off, so unless the resurrection healed the person by reattaching their head then they could not be alive, which it was not done for Jesus Christ as He was still injured with holes in His body and that means a resuscitation was the resurrection.

Then the Bible states that Jesus remained alive another 40 days, per Acts 1:3, and that is a long but reasonable time for a person to die from the massive trauma and injuries of the crucifixion.

Jesus still cheated death and escaped the Roman execution.

The Roman soldiers were NOT infallible about a person being dead or not, while even today we need trained medics to use a high criteria before a person is pronounced as dead.

So the biggest proof is that Jesus was still injured, and Jesus Himself explained to the disciples that he was flesh and blood alive and not a risen dead.

Saying Jesus was resurrected by mystical magic (a miracle) is contradicting what Jesus Himself said that He had not died (not ascended) John 20:17 link HERE, and that He was going to ascend (die) later.

Jesus was severely wounded and dying from His injuries so saying "ascend" is a nice way of wording it, and the KJV does word things nicely.

The New International version (NIV) words the John 20:17a text like this:

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.'" Link.

Jesus told them not to touch as He was in pain and fragile, and He knew He was still going to die.

As to Jesus walking then the text does say that He laid for three (3) days in His tomb which is a sensible long time to recover before He was able to get up, and with doubting Thomas then Jesus said to touch His wounded hands and the wound in His side but said nothing about His feet, link = John 20:27, as in His feet might not have been hurt as the Romans might have spared His feet and that too does explain why He did not die from the crucifixion.

So the evidence is recorded in the text that Jesus did not die on the cross, and His resurrection was a resuscitation, and so it was still a great and wonderful type of miracle except that it was not some magical or mystical event.

This does NOT deny Jesus as the Christ or Jesus as son-of-God, as it just explains the events more accurately and more realist too.

[bookworm]

Nov 1, 2011 8:09:14 GMT -5 JP Cusick said:

According to the given info in the Biblical research of the Gospels

What Biblical research of the Gospels are you talking about? The Gospels clearly show that Christ died and then rose from the dead.

You see, if Christ did not actually die and then miraculously rise from the dead, then there is no hope for anyone's salvation, as I Corinthians 15:13-17 states.
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

If Christ did not actually rise from the dead, then Christianity is a futile religion and should not be followed at all. There is no point to Christianity without the resurrection.

[JP Cusick]

Nov 1, 2011 20:55:01 GMT -5 bookworm said:

What Biblical research of the Gospels are you talking about? The Gospels clearly show that Christ died and then rose from the dead.

The Biblical research I was referring to - is that given in the opening post of this thread.

The answer / reference was built into the message.

Nov 1, 2011 20:55:01 GMT -5 bookworm said:

You see, if Christ did not actually die and then miraculously rise from the dead, then there is no hope for anyone's salvation, as I Corinthians 15:13-17 states.
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

"Resuscitation" is just a different form of a resurrection.

Back in the older days then to fly would be a miracle while today it is just the laws of aerodynamics.

So with a resuscitation then Jesus still rose from the dead and He still had a resurrection but today we know it to be a resuscitation.

The real difference here is that it was a realistic miracle based on realistic terms, instead of a magical miracle based on supernatural terms.

Nov 1, 2011 20:55:01 GMT -5 bookworm said:

If Christ did not actually rise from the dead, then Christianity is a futile religion and should not be followed at all. There is no point to Christianity without the resurrection.

Of course there is a point and it is a better point for following Christ.

When we discover Jesus (Yesu) to be a real person instead of a magical-man then we start dealing with the hard and beneficial realities because it is the "truth" which sets us free, and the truths are what every person needs to get closer to God.

If we do believe the Bible is inspired by God then it was God who put this information into the scripture so that we would find it out.

[bookworm]

Nov 2, 2011 8:55:55 GMT -5 JP Cusick said:

Nov 1, 2011 20:55:01 GMT -5 bookworm said:

So with a resuscitation then Jesus still rose from the dead and He still had a resurrection but today we know it to be a resuscitation.

The real difference here is that it was a realistic miracle based on realistic terms, instead of a magical miracle based on supernatural terms.

So do you believe Paul was mistaken then when he spoke of the resurrection as something that actually raised Jesus from a position of DEATH? If it was just a resuscitation, then Jesus wasn't actually dead, was he? So how can you say that Jesus still rose from the dead if he was simply resuscitated? That doesn't make sense at all.

Do you also "explain away" every other instance of God working supernaturally in the Bible? Do you try to find "realistic" explanations for other miracles rather than acknowling that a supernatural God can certainly act supernaturally? How can you acknowledge that it was God who put information into the Scriptures, but then deny the "actual" information that He put in the Scriptures?

[JP Cusick]

Nov 3, 2011 9:37:58 GMT -5 bookworm said:

So do you believe Paul was mistaken then when he spoke of the resurrection as something that actually raised Jesus from a position of DEATH? If it was just a resuscitation, then Jesus wasn't actually dead, was he? So how can you say that Jesus still rose from the dead if he was simply resuscitated? That doesn't make sense at all.

Do you also "explain away" every other instance of God working supernaturally in the Bible? Do you try to find "realistic" explanations for other miracles rather than acknowling that a supernatural God can certainly act supernaturally? How can you acknowledge that it was God who put information into the Scriptures, but then deny the "actual" information that He put in the Scriptures?

The Apostle Paul was not necessarily mistaken unless one tries to take the old words and apply them literally by today's knowledge which is not compatible. As in that there was no such a word as "resuscitation" in their languages, and a resuscitation is a type of resurrection. As to whether Jesus was completely dead and resuscitated / resurrected or just very near death or dead for a few seconds or dead for a minute or two? is just not really necessary information in regard to what really happened.

I know a Man here in my hometown and his Uncle had some kind of heart attack or medical emergency where his uncle was dead, and the guy gave his uncle CPR until the rescue squad ambulance arrived and they revived his uncle. Then according to this Man he told me that his Uncle died again 5 years later, so his CPR gave his uncle 5 more years of life which he would not have lived otherwise. So that uncle died twice and we know it.

Therefore Jesus rising from the dead because He was resuscitated (based on the info as told in the opening post here) is completely Bible accurate and it is a sensible and realistic explanation indeed.

As to other supernatural miracles in the Bible then yes I do explain them in realistic terms, and I see the truth and reality as far better and far more enlightening than are the claims of supernatural (magical) miracles. A vivid example is the "Big Bang" in that God created the universe through the "Big Bang" and not some magical instantaneous popup as so many people claim as their faith. It is the truth (reality) which sets people free.

As to the scriptures being inspired by God then that means the conflict and confusions come from people who misinterpret the meaning and substance of the scriptures. As like here I show from the Bible scripture that Jesus was resuscitated which is told in the Bible because now in these latter days we are learning more and learning better and more accurate.

The reality that the Bible is shown to be accurate based on our 21st century knowledge is a proof that the Bible was inspired by a very advanced and intelligent source.

[bookworm]

Nov 6, 2011 9:35:50 GMT -5 JP Cusick said:

The Apostle Paul was not necessarily mistaken unless one tries to take the old words and apply them literally by today's knowledge which is not compatible. As in that there was no such a word as "resuscitation" in their languages, and a resuscitation is a type of resurrection. As to whether Jesus was completely dead and resuscitated / resurrected or just very near death or dead for a few seconds or dead for a minute or two? is just not really necessary information in regard to what really happened.

Of course that would be necessary information in regards to what really happened. The only way a resuscitation would be comparable to a resurrection would be if the "death" only lasted a few seconds or a minute or two. But the Bible does not describe a death that only lasted a few seconds. The Bible verse you posted earlier regarding the soldiers who did not break Christ's legs is a verse which supports my position regarding Christ's death. The soldiers wanted to make sure that all the prisoners were dead so thay broke the legs of the prisoners who were still alive. This would hasten their deaths. But when they came to Jesus, they could see that he was already dead and thus they did not need to break his legs to hasten his death. Just to make sure, however, they used a sword to stab his side. This sword did not magically turn into a surgical instrument which drained fluid from his heart and revived him. The soldiers were not idiots. They could tell if a person was actually breathing or not. The people who took Jesus down from the cross and wrapped in graveclothes were not idiots. They would have been able to tell if Jesus had been breathing or not. Then Jesus spent three days in a cave without food or water. If he was really "just barely" alive at the time, he would not have survived that stretch of time. The scenario you describe is far more unrealistic that a supernatural miracle would be.

Therefore Jesus rising from the dead because He was resuscitated (based on the info as told in the opening post here) is completely Bible accurate and it is a sensible and realistic explanation indeed.

One other thing wrong with your opening post is that you use the word "ascend" as some sort of synonym for "die" and that is not what "ascend" means. "Ascend" means to rise in the air. Forty days after Jesus came back from the dead from the dead, he rose into the air and went to Heaven. That was simply a change in location, not a death. The Bible does not describe Jesus as being close to death during those forty days, so your scenario does not have any Scriptural support.

[bookworm]

Nov 6, 2011 9:35:50 GMT -5 JP Cusick said:

As to other supernatural miracles in the Bible then yes I do explain them in realistic terms, and I see the truth and reality as far better and far more enlightening than are the claims of supernatural (magical) miracles. . . . .

The reality that the Bible is shown to be accurate based on our 21st century knowledge is a proof that the Bible was inspired by a very advanced and intelligent source.

I see your two statements here to be inconsistent with each other, as I mentioned earlier. You say the Bible was inspired by a "very advanced and intelligent source." Do you admit that that source was suprnatural, or do you think the source was like some advanced alien that we haven't yet discovered witth our "21st century knowledge?" And I still don't comprehend how you think that the message of the Bible is reflecting some accuracy "based on our 21st century knowledge." It is accurate based on the existence of God the Father, who of course is a "very advanced and intelligent source," who gave us not only the message of the Bible, but also the miracles in the Bible. John 14:6-9 reflects this idea. If you want the truth (reality) to set you free, you will look at what Jesus claimed was the truth.
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
The works that Jesus did were his miracles, and Jesus was saying that his works showed the disciples the existence of the Father. His miracles had a supernatural source.
NIcodemus recognised this in John 3:1 when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
The signs were the miracles that Jesus did. The miracles were indications that Jesus came from God, and Jesus himself claimed that he was one with the Father. You cannot deny the miracles of Jesus without also denying the message. They are fundamentally tied together. Yet you are trying to say that God's message was one in which supernatural miracles are denied. That is illogical and inconsistent with Scripture.

[JP Cusick]

Nov 7, 2011 9:11:14 GMT -5 bookworm said:

I see your two statements here to be inconsistent with each other, as I mentioned earlier. You say the Bible was inspired by a "very advanced and intelligent source." Do you admit that that source was supernatural, or do you think the source was like some advanced alien that we haven't yet discovered with our "21st century knowledge?" And I still don't comprehend how you think that the message of the Bible is reflecting some accuracy "based on our 21st century knowledge." It is accurate based on the existence of God the Father, who of course is a "very advanced and intelligent source," who gave us not only the message of the Bible, but also the miracles in the Bible. John 14:6-9 reflects this idea. If you want the truth (reality) to set you free, you will look at what Jesus claimed was the truth.

[ inserted = Link John 14:6-9 KJV ]

The works that Jesus did were his miracles, and Jesus was saying that his works showed the disciples the existence of the Father. His miracles had a supernatural source.
Nicodemus recognized this in John 3:1 when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
The signs were the miracles that Jesus did. The miracles were indications that Jesus came from God, and Jesus himself claimed that he was one with the Father. You cannot deny the miracles of Jesus without also denying the message. They are fundamentally tied together. Yet you are trying to say that God's message was one in which supernatural miracles are denied. That is illogical and inconsistent with Scripture.

That is a very detailed posting, and I do not want to break it up into sections as I say it would confuse things here so I will do the numbers again.

Just want anyone to know that there is logic in my madness.

1) I say that both "advanced intelligence" and "supernatural" are the same thing as in synonymous words.

Otherwise there is nothing as supernatural. In the older days people saw flying as supernatural or atomic bombs or creation day (big bang) or child birth, but today we understand those better as natural and not supernatural.

2) If we go by the Bible then God is said to come from and lives in the "heavens" which does literally mean outer space.

Science does believe that there is intelligent life in outer space, and the Bible declares the same thing - that there is an intelligent entity called as "God" who has visited our earth from the heavens.

Even Jesus is recorded to have said a really strange thing as He said that He Jesus did not come from this world - John 8:23

I believe in the thing we call as "God" to be a real life form, and not a magical mystical spirit without shape or form.

3) Science of the 21st Century has demonstrated proofs of the existence of a creation day and of infinity which are direct scientific proofs of a creator God.

4) I love it where you equate "truth" with "reality" as most people do not understand that fantastic connection. As such seeking the truth means seeking reality and this is the basis of my entire position. As like in Jesus being "resuscitated" is a reality while claiming some magical miracle of a resurrection is not a reality.

5) John 14:6-12, where Jesus says He is the "truth" the life and the way then that means any truth and life and the way is all a representation of Himself. As like the Buddha based his beliefs on "the 4 Noble Truths" which mean those truths are a representation of Jesus Christ. So it is not the name of Jesus or the person of Jesus - no, it is the truth which is reality which is the way of life, which is the representation of God.

6) A more correct critique of the Bible shows that Jesus did do "miracles" but they were not supernatural and every one has a realistic explanation. As like the resuscitation as the resurrection is the exact same action under realistic terms.

7) Also in John 14:6-12, then Jesus was with the Father God but they are two completely separate entities. Jesus prayed to God over and over as told in the Bible so the Father God was with Jesus in many ways but the 2 are not one or the same.

8) I do NOT deny the miracles as I simply explain the same miracles in realistic terms, and rightly so.

Either we believe in a real God or a magical God, and I find the real God as the true one.

[bookworm]

Nov 22, 2011 9:49:18 GMT -5 JP Cusick said:

1) I say that both "advanced intelligence" and "supernatural" are the same thing as in synonymous words.

Otherwise there is nothing as supernatural. In the older days people saw flying as supernatural or atomic bombs or creation day (big bang) or child birth, but today we understand those better as natural and not supernatural.

I just want to make sure i understand tha grammar of your statements here. Are you saying that nothing is actually supernatural, since those things which we think might be supernatural are actually just things with a natural explanation for them?

[JP Cusick]

Nov 23, 2011 0:41:22 GMT -5 bookworm said:

I just want to make sure i understand tha grammar of your statements here. Are you saying that nothing is actually supernatural, since those things which we think might be supernatural are actually just things with a natural explanation for them?

Yes, that is correct, and that is what I am saying.

People just view things as supernatural when everything is very natural.

In fact "nature" is just another word or synonym for "God".

And the word "God" is very far from accurate, as the more accurate identity name would be like Father/Creator or Yahweh.

But it is still important to note that I am not discounting miracles - no, as in God did create the heavens and the earth which is a huge miracle while calling the creation day as the "big bang" is more realistically accurate, and I still say Jesus (Yesu) did rise from the dead which was a big miracle even though we now know it was a resuscitation as the means of resurrection.

This is what I see as the more accurate message of the "Gospels" in that the strength and power of God and for people is in moral and righteous actions which are very real, while there is no magic tricks or supernatural help.

It is through the realistic acts of righteousness (truth) that anyone taps into the vast power of the Father God, and nothing otherwise.

I see it very much like shown in the Harry Potter stories, in that they call it "magic" while giving realistic explanations at the same time. As in a Wizard or Witch can not fly except on a broomstick, because it is totally possible that science can create a small flying device as like a broom. Or that Harry Potter must use a wand so the power is in the wand and not in his self. Or use spells and potions and call that as "magic" when there can be realistic explanations for every such thing.

The true Father God is not some magical or mystical supernatural entity, no, God is a real reality and nothing less.

If anyone wants to get closer to God then we each must seek the truth (the realities) and then put such into action, and there is the source of real miracles.