sschlichter

There are probably 5 different valid opinions among Christians on what occurred in John 20:22. So what? I am willing to consider them all. I happen to beleive that it was a preparatory statement about Pentecost.

Christians that are offended by the joke that Jesus may have suffered from bad breath after being dead 3 days can approach me privately, and I will apologize to them. However, Christ necessarily suffered the humiliation of descending and becoming a man and that entails all human frailties including halitosis and that makes me thank him all the more.

~steve

Sheshbazzar

Evidently, either you have little to no understanding of the concept of "First-fruits" and its New Testement application, or it is a Biblical subject that just does not fit within the parameters of your "personal" theology.

Sheshbazzar

So steve, Do you teach that Christ retained those human frailties following His Resurrection? Is He still suffering human frailties, ones that He was never able to overcome? IF He did overcome, WHEN?

angelo

My apologies for that indiscretion. I do believe I jumped the gun a tad before checking my sources.
In fact there were around 27 of them. I have their names in front of me.
The fact that their silent on such a world shattering event as a man walking on water, raising the dead, healing the crippled, and to top it all his own resurrection after been dead a couple of days to me is a slam dunk.
Miracle men were a dime a dozen in those days and are mentioned in a lot of the history of the times. But not one is mentioned as arising from the dead and a bit later ascending straight up into a three tiered heaven and who his followers claimed to be God himself.

Keith&Co.

Really? No christain ever discusses pagan theology? Ever teaches Homer or the Iliad? Ever compares the failings of Muslim belief to the Truth of Christainity?

CD doesn't prevent mention of such things. This is demonstrable.

This is, infact, a sign of your own problem. You have to interpret the silence of contemporary writers in a manner that's positive for your theology. If Philo, 'all the way from Alexandria' had mentioned New Testament events, even dismissively, you'd likely consider it perfectly normal and natural. Even defend it against critics who call it a forgery.

sschlichter

the key word was joke.

Sheshbazzar

the alleged "joke".
AND;
The "qualifying" statement,
The qualifying "However" implies that this portion of your "reasoning" was not intended as a joke, but as your reason that His breathing on them after His Resurrection would be foul.
Was the "and that makes me thank him all the more."_ also part of your "joke"?

Looking at the "shipwreck" that you are making here, one could conclude that, Yes, your claim is an obvious "joke".
But be careful that you yourself never display the least modicum of humility, nor ever admit to making a hasty and mistaken reply, (like "angelo atheist" has done just above) but CYA at all costs.
Be nothing better than that The Son of Man does indeed come, and require of you an accounting for every idle word, and appoint your portion.

But answer the questions steve;
Do you teach that Christ retained those human frailties following His Resurrection? Is He still suffering human frailties, ones that He was never able to overcome?
IF He did overcome, WHEN?

dr lazer blast

Incorrect, I never claimed those emotions were synonoumous in the first place. The only reason I said they were the same was because I fell for your straw man argument :banghead: once I realized how you were being fallacious I drew up the timelime that took care of that. So, the whole 'emotions incapatibility' was corrected.

Another baseless assertion, considering the simple fact that mary nor the other women beleived anything the angels said at all. Baseless assertions, you're full of them. Im sure there are people out there that could make a valid criticism with no logical fallacies. I don't mind responding to you once you make valid criticsms, but as of lately you have failed to do so. When you make logically fallacious arguments, those make your arguments invalid. Sorry, I didn't make it up, its just logic, read up on it!:wave:

Amaleq13

Like I said, you still don't understand the nature of the implausibility as you continue to be distracted by your irrelevant mistake claiming that Mark refers to "joy". :banghead:

That error really has nothing to do with the implausibility of your narrative. That you still don't realize this suggests I am correct in identifying further efforts at discussion with you as a waste of time. That you continue to suffer under the delusion that you have correctly identified even a single logical error in my argument is just sad. But funny.

Not if you are still claiming they [Mt+Mk] both state joy. That continues to be quite blatantly false. Ultimately irrelevant to your implausible narrative but false nonetheless.

And this continues to have no support from the texts and continues to contradict the explicitly joyful reaction described by Matthew.

The scene in John 20:2 is clearly Mary's initial reaction and placing it subsequent to the angelic message continues to be implausible.

Doug Shaver

No. I was doing that check when I noticed Paul's claim that Peter saw the risen Christ before the other disciples did. I don't see any place in the gospel accounts where that might have happened.