Someone stole the body!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So it's all BS as usual.

 Hey dummy, we do not have an original copy of Shakespeare, so is this also BS. We haven't originals of many historical documents, does this mean they are worthless. The original Constitution is fading away even in it's protective case, one day we will lose it too, grow up and be reasonable.

GC

If you are a Christian you're definitely going to hell for being an intolerant prick.

The Bible didn't exist until an English committee wrote it around 700 A.D.

[Gemini]

... "His will" could as easy be malicious or indifferent to suffering as it could be benevolent.

No it can't, the Bible clearly lays out for us God's purpose and that purpose is redemption...

Do you believe that God's commands, whatever they are, are morally justified, just because it was God who issued them? 

Yes absolutely, without doubt...

Trying to sort this out. Do you believe it's possible for God to command someone to poke a baptist in the eye for the sheer pleasure of watching the baptist suffer? Does God have the freedom to issue such a command? And if he did, would it be morally justifiable for me to act on it, just in virtue of God's having commanded it?

[Godscreated]

 Those are not reliable or accepted teachings of Christ, the go against the Bible we now have.

GC

The Gospel of Thomas has been deemed to be somewhat historically reliable.  There was not one version of early Christianity, but many different ones.  Your version comes on the scene very late, being descended from the Anabaptists of the 16th-century, whom Martin Luther even persecuted.

In all, there are at least 44 different "Gospels" that were written prior to the 2nd century.  The Gospel of Peter, for instance, was supported in some of the early Churches and contains sayings of Jesus that are found in the Bible Gospels.

 First my faith started with the day Christ was born, the writers of the NT were finished by the end of the first century, the same century that Christ lived on earth.

 It doesn't surprise me that there are historical facts in some of the rejected writings, they did live during the times. The Bible is a spiritual book with history within it which is only natural.

GC

[Godscreated]

 Hey dummy, we do not have an original copy of Shakespeare, so is this also BS. We haven't originals of many historical documents, does this mean they are worthless. The original Constitution is fading away even in it's protective case, one day we will lose it too, grow up and be reasonable.

GC

If you are a Christian you're definitely going to hell for being an intolerant prick.

The Bible didn't exist until an English committee wrote it around 700 A.D.

 You're not very intelligent are you, all the books of the NT were finished by the end of the first century.

GC

[Jehanne]

If you are a Christian you're definitely going to hell for being an intolerant prick.

The Bible didn't exist until an English committee wrote it around 700 A.D.

 You're not very intelligent are you, all the books of the NT were finished by the end of the first century.

GC

This is absolutely false; 2 Peter was clearly authored in the early to mid 2nd-century:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

[Jehanne]

This is not a thread for Jesus mythists, so let's suppose that Jesus of Nazareth existed.  Professor Bart Ehrman, in his 2008 debate with William Craig, gave a completely naturalistic explanation of Jesus' supposed "resurrection" from the dead, which I am going to embellish on my own:

Some of your embellishments are not within the likely course of events:

1)  Around age 30 Jesus went down to Jerusalem for the first time from Galilee after being born in Nazareth, got busted by the Romans for causing trouble in the Temple, went before a Roman proctor (probably, never even met Pilate -- few, if any, criminals ever did), was labeled a loon and insurrector, and with some likely influence from the Jewish authorities, was executed by crucifixion.

Scholars and Historians of Ancient Rome view it as extremely unlikely that a religious group (the Palestinian Jews or otherwise) could have had any influence over rule and order. They further point out that Jesus causing trouble in the temple would have been all the justification necessary to crucify him under Roman rule.

2)  Jesus had some sympathizers, and with some influence, his body was handed over to them and buried in a tomb.  The Jewish authorities likely agreed to this as some sort of "peace offering" to Jesus' followers.

The Jewish authorities would have had no authority over the body - nor would the disciples. Only his family would have had the authority to take possession of the body. The Gospels do say a secret disciple (Joseph of Arimathea) took the body and laid it in a stone-cut tomb, however that exact line of events is unlikely. It is likely that either his family or someone on their behalf (possibly Joseph of Arimathea) took possession of the deceased.

3)  However, some of Jesus' family members, followers and friends were unhappy with his burial arrangements, and so, in the middle of the night, they went and stole Jesus' body.  But while they were traveling with Jesus' corpse, they were discovered by a Roman watch, confronted, and after a brief scuffle, they were all killed by the Romans.  Their bodies, along with Jesus', were buried in an unmarked grave.

That's a implausible situation. Roman authorities did not kill people on sight - even grave-robbers. And even if such an event took place, as I mentioned above SOMEONE took possession of the body, therefore that person is not going to be unhappy about burial arrangements. Therefore you can't have everyone - family, friends, and followers, all unhappy at the same time. I think it's much more likely that the family removed the body from the tomb in the evening of "Sunday" (Nissan 16 c.30 AD) and that consequently in the morning his disciples found it empty.

I don't disagree with your very fine analysis, by the way.

[Godscreated]

No it can't, the Bible clearly lays out for us God's purpose and that purpose is redemption...


Yes absolutely, without doubt...

Trying to sort this out. Do you believe it's possible for God to command someone to poke a baptist in the eye for the sheer pleasure of watching the baptist suffer? Does God have the freedom to issue such a command? And if he did, would it be morally justifiable for me to act on it, just in virtue of God's having commanded it?

 No, that would be a mean person with the possibility of Satan or one of his minions working on the heart of that person. That's a debatable issue, God has the power to do anything He wants to, but I believe that God is limited by who He is love, compassion, grace, caring and ect. So to answer your question I do not believe He would. Your last question is highly debated but the answer is IMO no you would be guilty of sin but God would be justified in His action. Now I've answered these questions with this in mind, the word command you are using should be influenced. A command by God would have to be by necessity for everyone, and wouldn't we have a crazy world where everyone went around poking each other in the eye. 

GC

[Godscreated]

 You're not very intelligent are you, all the books of the NT were finished by the end of the first century.

GC

This is absolutely false; 2 Peter was clearly authored in the early to mid 2nd-century:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

 Peter didn't live that long and we do not have an original copy to date either.

GC

[Gemini]

you would be guilty of sin but God would be justified in His action. 

So If God commanded me to poke you in the eye, and I did, then I would be guilty of sin, but God would be blameless?

Please tell me I've misunderstood you.

[Jehanne]

This is absolutely false; 2 Peter was clearly authored in the early to mid 2nd-century:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

 Peter didn't live that long and we do not have an original copy to date either.

GC

That's the point; II Peter was a forgery.  Do you believe that the Gospel of Peter was written by Peter?