Question for all you Christians

[Rumple]

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:" Ecc 3:1

"...a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;" Ecc 3:7

"And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." Matt 27:12-14

Nebula:I have to disagree with your assessment of Greg's comment. He didn't say Ehrenkreuz was an evil Nazi, but that he is identifying himself with the Nazis by taking on the name of one of their highest honors. The last sentence had to do with known Nazi practices.

Nebula: I personally fail to understand why someone would take on such an association to oneself.

Rumple:The man may disagree with the basics of Christianity, but he still deserves to be treated as Jesus would treat him.

Nebula: Now, this would make for an interesting theological debate - how did Jesus treat those who spoke evil of Him? If you read the things He said to and about the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and teachers of the Law who opposed Him, He wasn't always very nice.

[Rumple]

Hello again nebula!

Rumple:It may simply be the name that his parents gave him at birth.

nebula:*EDIT: I looked up the Ehrenkreuz's profile. "Ehrenkreuz" is a female, and it is not her name.*

Doing that never occurred to me. One strike against me.

----------------------------------

Although I can appreciate where you are coming from in this, the fact that her last post was to admit the name meant a German medal of honor - and it was she who explained its association with the Third Reich - she opened the door wide open for speculation.

She did do that and now less likely it is still possible that the name was taken on the basis of honor the cross of Christ rather than in some favorable recognition of the Third Reich. Lacking more evidence I would still be inclined to give her the benefit of a doubt.

Davies: So what does Ehrenkreuz mean?

its a Medal of Honor in Germany, if I remember correctly.

Ehrenkreuz: You do remember correctly. Handed out during the Nazi era of Third Reich to citizens who displayed great courage/contributed strongly to the war effort.

nebula]Since she has been very strong in her declaration against the physical resurrection of Jesus, don't you think she owes us to answer this herself? Should she not have known the association would create an offense? Why did she not clarify her reason for the name in her last response? Should she not be held accountable to the use of this as a username?

It certainly would be better from our standpoint if she would answer for herself. Perhaps from her standpoint for valid reasons unknown to us this is not the case. Indeed, suspicions of her intentions are not unreasonable, and she may be guilty as charged, but a conviction is hardly in order. As to her user name, I understand why a person chooses to have one for their own security. Sometimes the names are chosen randomly and sometimes the names chosen can result in unexpected offenses. Some people like myself are very naive about things which are common knowledge to most others. I recognize my own limitations here and again would give her the benefit of a doubt absent more definite evidence. I know at this point that she looks guilty, but applying the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't cost us much here except maybe a little time and possibly pride.

She is free to answer and clarify at anytime. If any of us misjudged, we will be more than willing to appologize. All we ask is that she explain herself. Is that unloving?

I wouldn't call it unloving , but neither would I call it loving and probably no one else would. My point is not that she is right about anthing, but rather that we should not have judged, much less misjudged, based on the information available. For example if a teacher is falsely, but publicly, accused of molesting a child, the teacher's reputation is marred even if later exonerated. It would cost us nothing but time to wait until all of the evidence is in before announcing the verdict. The humblest of apologies does little good after the damage is done.

Rumple: Why did Jesus associate Himself with prostitutes and publican who in the eyes of others were obvious sinners?

nebula: But the prostitutes and publicans received Jesus while the Pharisees et al did not. It wasn't about religious vs. sinners. It was about who accepted Him and who did not.

Is it reasonable us to convict a person of anything simply because he/she does not accept Jesus? As Jesus did not come to condemn the world, neither should we. Someone who is not saved is already condemned without us adding our two cents worth.

[Guest Greg Davies]

Well, well, well.

My purpose in asking what "Ehrenkreuz" meant was at first simple curiosity and an effort to figure out where this mocker was coming from. Now before you accuse me of being unloveing, I'm using Jude's word describing those who would try to promote error and undermine The Faith.

By her own confession she has identified herself with the Nazis. Her tone seemed rather proud of this fact. Are we to ignore this?

Let's not blind ourselves as to a person's confessed motives by taking on some religious form of being "nice". If someone blatantly tries to undermine the truth of the resurrection and therefore our hope in God's promises, we should expose them for what they are.

Yes, and let's pray for them and, as I Cor 10:9-11 says, tear down strongholds and imaginations that exalt themselves against God so they can be rescued from the snare of the devil. Now that's love! Let God arise and His enemies be scattered (speaking spiritually of course).

[Arthur Durnan]

John 21 clearly states that Jesus ate FISH SANDWICHES after His resurrection...which must have been quite literal like His sandwiches. A "spiritual resurrection" is a major cornerstone of "Jehovah's False Witness" teaching. Avoid it as the plague!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Rumple]

Are you unloving Greg? That is not for me to say. That is between you and God and, of course, anyone you deal with.

As to her identification with the Nazis, NO, we should not ignor it it, but neither should we condemn her on that basis alone. The Pharisees were quick to condemn each and every publican because of their profession, but Jesus called one of them to follow Him and he (Matthew) apparently turned out OK.

As to defending the Truth...does it need to be defended? It simply is... and nothing anyone can say or do will change that. If we are to ever win souls it is likely to be souls of people who are very much immersed in the things of the world...even in Nazism.

Remember Corrie Ten Boom's 'The Hiding Place'? She was perfectly willing to be a 'good Christian' and pray for the poor tortured and suffering interns of the concentration camp. But...she was shocked when she discovered that her sister was referring to the cruel German guards when she spoke in sorrow about those poor souls.

Well, well, well.

My purpose in asking what "Ehrenkreuz" meant was at first simple curiosity and an effort to figure out where this mocker was coming from. Now before you accuse me of being unloveing, I'm using Jude's word describing those who would try to promote error and undermine The Faith.

By her own confession she has identified herself with the Nazis. Her tone seemed rather proud of this fact. Are we to ignore this?

Let's not blind ourselves as to a person's confessed motives by taking on some religious form of being "nice". If someone blatantly tries to undermine the truth of the resurrection and therefore our hope in God's promises, we should expose them for what they are.

Yes, and let's pray for them and, as I Cor 10:9-11 says, tear down strongholds and imaginations that exalt themselves against God so they can be rescued from the snare of the devil. Now that's love! Let God arise and His enemies be scattered (speaking spiritually of course).

[Rumple]

John 21 clearly states that Jesus ate FISH SANDWICHES after His resurrection...which must have been quite literal like His sandwiches. A "spiritual resurrection" is a major cornerstone of "Jehovah's False Witness" teaching. Avoid it as the plague!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Even the resurrection that occurs in His people, the renewing that brings them to Life from the death in sin where they have been until meeting Jesus?

[Yahsway]

Yeshua said "Destroy this temple, (meaning His body, not spirit) and in 3 days I will raise it up" (John 2:19)

Then the Jews said, "It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in 3 days? verse 20

But He (Yeshua) was speaking of the temple of His Body. verse 21

[HAZARD]

With regards to the resurrection, do you believe that Christ was resurrected in the flesh or merely in spirit? And why, please?

I've seen other Christians go either way, I'm wondering what you guys think.

________________________________________________________________________________

_____________

After Jesus was resurrected He appeared before His disciples.

But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. (Luke 24:37).

And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? (Luke 24:38).

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39).

And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (Luke 24:40).

Jesus Himself stated that he was flesh and bone in Luke 24 verse 39.

[Guest Biblicist]

Several times Jesus ate with his disciples.

"36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence." [Luke 24]

Ghosts, Holy Spirit or otherwise, do not eat. Jesus was flesh and blood, He said so.

I am wondering if this was ignored by the OP on purpose.

[Eddie B]

Yes, I'm aware, but this particular fact is not mentioned in the first 3 gospels and could therefore be disregarded a an fictitious embellishment.

If I'm correct Doubting Thomas was mentioned only in John, which was written at least a decade after Luke and Matthew who make no mention of the event.

A couple of things, Ehrenkreuz. First, one can not see a spirit. Secondly, God's Word is final, without mistake. There are other things in the Bible that appear only once. Because you can not cross reference something, does not meant it is not true.

First, None of this "God's Word is final" buisness, please. I'm sure that's fine when you're at church, but you sound rather pretentious from a non-believer's POV.

Second, assuming that Jesus was only resurrected in spirit, it's still entirely possible that he appeared to the Disciples in a vision. Or a 'revelation' as Paul says in Galatians 1. And in 1 Corinthians 15, verse 44 Paul says, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." It may also be worth reading the verses that follow, as they cling to the same pattern. There seems to be a chance that Paul believed that Christ rose not in a flesh body, but in a spiritual body.

Mt