“Did Jesus proclaim that he was raised from the dead?”

September 14, 2017

I started the above topic/thread for discussion on one of my favourite discussion forum:

Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

I think that the following was the best post in the topic. One may like to join the forum for more discussion, please.

Thanks to the forum and Mr.JerryMyers , please.

Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 56: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:22 am

Like this post (1): paarsurrey1

tam wrote:
And my point was that these ones were also put to death, as Christ was also put to death. Even in the parable of the wicked tenants foretells that the “tenants’ wanted to and would kill Him:

JerryMyers Offline

Yes, there are prophets who were put to death BUT that does not mean Jesus too must be put to death. Just as there are many soldiers who had died fighting for their country BUT that does not mean ALL soldiers must die for their country. The soldiers are fully aware of the risks and consequences of being a soldier just as Jesus was fully aware of the sufferings he will have to endure of being a prophet of God.

As for the parable of the wicked tenants, well, it’s just one of the many parables told, meant to be taken as a lesson and NOT to be taken literally or as a prophecy.

tam wrote:
I am not a ‘unitarian’ Christian. I am a Christian. I belong to Christ. I do not belong to anyone or anything other than Christ; I do not follow anyone or anything other than Christ. So I do not take any other name, such as “unitarian, roman catholic, mormon, jehovahs witness, baptist, anglican, adventist, pentecostal, etc, etc.”

JerryMyers Offline

OK, I can respect that.

tam wrote:
No. Because no one who accepts Christ having been crucified and raised from the dead has to try and explain away His words. No one has to try and say that Christ did not mean what He said. No one has to try and suggest that He did not know what was going to happen to Him. The entire NT testifies to His death (on the cross), His having died (on the cross) and then Him being raised from the dead. He states clearly that He will be killed and raised from the dead.

JerryMyers Offline

The entire NT are narrations of events, what Jesus said and what other people said. I just chose to give priority to what Jesus said over what others said.

tam wrote:
The only people who have to explain His words away are those who believe a doctrine that contradicts what Christ said and did.

JerryMyers Offline

Well, I did explain Jesus’ words but it’s not what you want to hear so, you dismissed them. That’s OK.

tam wrote:
The point, Jerry, is that Christ used the term “the LAST day” to describe that day. He did not use the term “the third day” to describe that day.

JerryMyers Offline

Well, to your point – Jesus NEVER use the term ‘Christian’ to describe his followers and yet today, Christians say they are called ‘Christians’ because they follow Jesus !

tam wrote:
First… you said that there was no verse in the Bible that states unequivocally that Christ was raised from the dead. This verse was given in response to your claim.

JerryMyers Offline

…And I will say it again – there’s not a single verse in the Bible that states unequivocally that Jesus was raised from the dead… and you claimed these verses John 2:20-22 state otherwise ?? Really ??

Well, lets see what transpired for Jesus to say what he said :

As Jesus entered the temple courts, he became angry when he saw people exchanging money, selling cattle, sheep and doves in the temple courts. He then made a whip and cleared the temple courts, shouting “Stop making my Father’s House into a market place!”.. The people are, understandably, annoyed by his actions, so they asked him “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” It was only then that Jesus said “Destroy the temple and I will raise it up in 3 days”. Now, lets ask ourselves honestly – does that sounds like Jesus was talking about his body ? No, what Jesus just said is an example of a hyperbole statement – an intentional exaggerated statement to emphasize a point – in response to the people who had just questioned him on whose authority gave him the rights to clear the temple courts. By saying ‘Destroy the temple and I will raise it up in 3 days’ Jesus was emphasizing that his authority came from God whose authority is so great that even if they destroy the temple, he can raise it up again in 3 days. Jesus, of course, was making a hyperbole statement to emphasize his authority. The people, of course, did not understand this and took it literally.

tam wrote:
Second… the false witnesses from Mark and Matthew testified falsely that Christ said HE would destroy the (physical) temple. But He never made that threat or spoke those words, as we can see from His words recorded in the book of John. He said to THEM (the pharisees and chief priests),

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.”

He never threatened to destroy their temple. He said what He would do (raise the temple up in 3 days) if they destroyed ‘this temple’.

JerryMyers Offline

Yes, but as I just explained above, that statement is a hyperbole statement. You need to understand the environment and the situation Jesus was in for him to say what he said and that was NOT the only time Jesus used hyperbole statements. Just to quote a couple of them :

– “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark 10:25 – a hyperbole statement to emphasize that it’s not easy and not every one can enter the kingdom of God and NOT as if a camel can go thru the eye of a needle.

– “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” – Matthew 6:3 – a hyperbole statement to emphasize that when you give alms or charities, do it secretively and not as a show-off and NOT as if the left hand and the right hand have brains of their own to know what each other do.

tam wrote:
And no, the verse does not contradict itself. You are confusing the ‘agony of death’ with ‘agony of DYING’.

Christ still died, but death could not hold (keep) Him.

You can see from the verse that Peter believed and stated that Christ had been put to death on the cross, that God raised Him from the dead. This came AFTER Christ had appeared to His disciples. So even after that time, His apostles understood that He had been crucified and raised from the dead.

JerryMyers Offline

The point is – IF Jesus died, then, he would have gone thru the full agony of, as you said, dying before meeting his death. When he ‘died’, then there’s no more agony, no more sufferings for him, at least, not on this earth. The next stage of your life after-death would be the Day of Resurrection/Last Day where all the dead will be resurrected for Judgment Day.

So, what is the difference between ‘agony of death’ and the ‘agony of dying’?? If you have experience in giving birth, is there a difference between ‘agony of labour’ and ‘agony of labouring’ ?

So, I will say it again – The only way God released Jesus from the agony of death is to have Jesus SAVED from the crucifixion itself AND THAT’S what God did.

tam wrote:
For what purpose?

JerryMyers Offline

No one can tell you that for sure as only God will know that just as no one, not even Jesus, can know the Hour but only God will know that.

tam wrote:
He did save Him. Raising Him from the dead.

JerryMyers Offline

‘Raising him from the dead’ can be a metaphorical statement meaning Jesus was saved from what is a sure certain death, that is, from the crucifixion which was for sure would be a certain death for him. Its not uncommon to hear people said that they came back from the dead after going thru or saved from certain death ordeals.

tam wrote:
Sure. After the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, His disciple asked Him why He spoke to the people in parables. His answer to them is in verses 11-15, beginning with, “…the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them…”. Then He explains to them the meaning of the parable in verse 18,

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means…”

After this He speaks in more parables, and His disciples come and ask Him what he meant by the parable of the weeds in the field, and He explained it to them. (verses 36- 43)

Second witness in Luke 8:9-15

JerryMyers Offline

Thanks for the examples. What was clear here was that his disciples have no clues as to what he was talking and they HAD TO ASK him for the explanations – its not that for his disciples he would just explain to them WITHOUT having to be asked, which is the impression I got from you when you said for his disciples he would explain to them. I am sure that if other people, who are not his disciples, asked him for explanations, he would explain to them too.

tam wrote:
I am confused because you still have not answered my question. Are you saying that He never died at all? Ever?

JerryMyers Offline

I thought that was very clear and obvious. Yes, I am saying Jesus never die from the time he was born to the time he ascended to God. Why do you think I asked you “Did Jesus say he died and rose from the dead AFTER the supposedly crucifixion ??” ?

tam wrote:
As [Jesus] was going up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside and said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life.” Matthew 20:17-19

JerryMyers Offline

Of course, Jesus himself would not know for sure he will be saved so, under his circumstances, he can and did expect himself to be betrayed, tried unfairly and sentenced to death.

tam wrote:
He predicted it. Then it happened. Exactly as He had predicted.

JerryMyers Offline

On the contrary – he expected it, that is, he WILL be betrayed, falsely charged for blasphemy and sentenced to death. Then it happened, that is, he WAS betrayed, WAS falsely charged for blasphemy and WAS sentenced to death. Exactly as he expected.

tam wrote:
No, I am asking how was it made to appear so unto them and for what purpose.

What exactly happened that it appeared to them that some other man was Christ?

JerryMyers Offline

‘No’ would mean you would agree that it’s NOT impossible for God to make it ‘to appear so unto them’ and you are just asking how it was done and for what purpose – would that be a fair assessment of your statement above ??
JerryMyers Offline

tam wrote:
I clipped the rest of your response because it does not answer my question. Why did none of them mention the idea that He did not die and was not crucified, if that is what Christ told them afterward?

JerryMyers Offline

After the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection, the Bible did not record Jesus explicitly saying he died and was resurrected nor did it record Jesus explicitly saying he did not die. So, we are left with what Jesus did say and the reactions of the people who saw him alive after the supposedly resurrection. Based on what we have in the Bible, that after the supposedly resurrection, his words and the reactions of those who saw him, tells us Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified.

tam wrote:
It is not up to us.

JerryMyers Offline

Correct. Then, why are you questioning God for what purpose He would make it appear so unto them in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion ??

tam wrote:
this from happening, and TWICE Christ rebuked Him.

From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Matthew 16:21 – 23

JerryMyers Offline

Peter was just reacting as any concerned man would do. Would you allow your father or loved one go to a place that you know will bring harm and will pose a grave danger to him ?

tam wrote:
“I told you that I am He,” Jesus replied. “So if you are looking for Me, let these men go.” This was to fulfill the word He had spoken: “I have not lost one of those You have given Me.” Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. “Put your sword back in its sheath! Jesus said to Peter. “Shall I not drink” the cup the Father has given Me?

Notice also His first words, “if you are looking for me, let these men go”.

These are not the words of a man who would allow someone else to suffer and die in his place, being mistaken for Him.

JerryMyers Offline

You need to understand the circumstances and the environment Jesus was in. Here, Jesus knew the Jews were only interested to arrest him, NOT any of his disciples. So, instead of having all his disciples arrested or harmed, Jesus did the right thing and asked the soldiers who came to arrest him to leave the others alone since they came ONLY to arrest him, NOT his disciples. Again, Jesus did the right thing when Simon Peter drew his sword, he asked him to put back his sword in its sheath. WHY ? Because it was only ONE man who drew out his sword to fight NOT everyone and it would not be possible for one man to overcome the soldiers. Would Jesus do the same thing if all his followers had drawn their swords to defend him from being arrested ? The answer is NO, he would allow his followers to fight for him. So, your statement that Jesus will not allow anyone to suffer and die (as a possible outcome of fighting to defend him) is FALSE and BASELESS.

tam wrote:
How and for what purpose? And if that were true, why did none of His apostles state so (or believe it) after Christ supposedly came and told them He had not been crucified?

JerryMyers Offline

As I said it was only made to appear so unto them and as you said, its not up to us to know. I can only speculate as to for what purpose BUT its only God who will know His true purpose just as many people can speculate when will be the Hour BUT its only God who know the actual Hour.

tam wrote:
Actually, your reasoning lends even more credence to the fact that Christ was crucified. Because He would have proved that He would not give up on God, even during torture and suffering and death, even though He asked for the cup to be removed from Him (only if possible, though. He never wanted His will to usurp His Father’s will).

JerryMyers Offline

Not really. You are assuming that Jesus’ prayers for God to save him are not answered BUT you are wrong as even the scriptures said his prayers to save him from his ordeal will be answered by God.

tam wrote:
There is no contradiction. He was not dead when He appeared to His apostles. He had been raised from the dead. Raised to life. So He was alive when He appeared to His apostles and He was alive when He ascended into heaven.

JerryMyers Offline

Again, if he was not dead when he appeared to his apostles, that’s because he was never crucified. ‘Raised from the dead’ can be a metaphorical statement meaning he was saved from a sure and certain death.

tam wrote:
Are you not the son of your father? The son of a man? Would you then turn around and describe yourself as “a man, the son?”

JerryMyers Offline

Of course, I am the son of my father (a man), however, it would also not be wrong for me to say I am a man, the son, now would it ? Although that would be repetitive for a normal person as its understood that a son must be a man.

tam wrote:
I do not know why people say God the Son, except perhaps to indicate that God is a trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).

But Christ is the Son of His Father (God); like you are the son of your father (a man).

JerryMyers Offline

Well, on this matter, you just cannot equate Jesus to any normal man as Jesus do not have a biological father. So, when you said Jesus is the son of God, the correct understanding from the Bible is that he is the servant of God. It does not matter whether you capitalised the letter ‘s’ for ‘Son of God’ or not as the original manuscripts from which all the English Bibles you have today are translated from, are in a semitic language (Hebrew, Latin Greek, Aramaic) which do not make any distinction between capital letters and small letters.

The impression I get from you is that Jesus was born out of God which would mean he is also God as say, the offspring of a leopard has to be a leopard too. However, you said Jesus is not God, which is rather confusing.

Peace to you too, Tammy.


“Jesus in Japan”

August 28, 2017

Japan Jesus

Tomb of Jesus in Japan:

On the flat top of a steep hill in a distant corner of northern Japan lies the tomb of an itinerant shepherd who, two millennia ago, settled down there to grow garlic. He fell in love with a farmer’s daughter named Miyuko, fathered three kids and died at the ripe old age of 106. In the mountain hamlet of Shingo, he’s remembered by the name Daitenku Taro Jurai. The rest of the world knows him as Jesus Christ.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-little-known-legend-of-jesus-in-japan-165354242/#DtWkHpDUlp534RrL.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Quran is guidance for humanity, there is no doubt about it

July 28, 2017

I joined discussion at <https://redd.it/6pq1jr&gt; topic <What religious positions of yours have changed after people have demonstrated you were wrong? (self.DebateReligion)>:

submitted 2 days ago by publicani atheist

Oh hai.

This is for believer and non-believe alike. For myself: I used to be Catholic, and became Anti-theist out of my own reasoning; I was sure no god existed. Through debate, I have to admit that it’s possible that some god could exist, but I remain pretty sure that certain gods do not exist in this universe. Debate has also caused me to accept that billions of people asserting a claim is “some evidence” of the claim’s validity (I know that’s contentious–the point I’m making here is I changed a position based on people demonstrating I was inconsistent and wrong in my opinions).

If you haven’t ever changed your belief, would you state you’ve never been proven wrong? If you’ve been proven wrong but haven’t changed your belief, aren’t you operating in bad faith–and if not ‘bad faith,’ what are you doing?

[–]Rayalot72agnostic atheist 1 point an hour ago

Is it actually difficult to write a fiction consistent with reality when I don’t write about much of anything in the physical world?

Are you a creationist?

[–]paarsurrey  4 minutes ago

“The Honorable Lord Krishna: A Prophet Of Allah”

July 27, 2017

Courtesy of the  

I quote from it here:

While many recognize the differences between Islam and Hinduism, few may appreciate that according to Islamic principles and Prophet Muhammad, Lord Krishna was a true Prophet of God.

The obvious question that emerges is that if the same God sent Lord Krishna and Prophet Muhammad, why do Islam and Hinduism have notable theological differences? Simply put, Islam only argues that the original core teachings of Hinduism and Islam are the same — the unity of God and the obligation to serve mankind. Furthermore, nothing in the Quran, Sunnah or Hadith declares that Lord Krishna was not a prophet. Thus, this short article offers nine points to consider – together – that Lord Krishna is a true prophet of God, a prophet whom Muslims also revere along with their fellow Hindu neighbors.”
The whole article needs to be read, please.
I highly recommend it.

Muslims respect Krishna

July 27, 2017

I joined discussion @ https://redd.it/6pojdv topic <Has a religion ever mentioned the existence of another religion within its source material?> and wrote/responded following posts.


I haven’t met many Muslims who respect Krishna actually, and neither does the Qur’an mention Hinduism. But overall, yes, the Qur’an is very universalist in its understanding of religion. By this I don’t mean it says that everyone goes to heaven, but that the insistence of Islam upon God as the One and the Absolute has led to the acceptance of a multiplicity of prophets and revelations (5:48).


Are you an Ahmadi by any chance?

Has a religion ever mentioned the existence of another religion?

July 26, 2017


Has a religion ever mentioned the existence of another religion within its source material? (self.DebateReligion)

submitted a by gothicrain

[–]paarsurrey responded:

Quran not only mentions other revealed religions but mentions that those religions were truthful in their origin, their founders got Word of Revelations from God and that they were truthful persons. It is incumbent on the followers of Quran/Islam/Muhammad to believe in such founders and respect their revelations in whatever positions these are now. One cannot be a Muslim if one does not believe in the truthfulness of such persons and the messages they brought from God. It is for this that the followers of Quran/Islam/Muhammad respect Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Socrates etc. Regards



One may like to join the discussion at https://redd.it/6pojdv or here in this blog please.


Mary was not the wife of God, so Jesus was never a “Son of God”

July 25, 2017

I joined the discussion at < https://redd.it/6p50zg&gt; topic Fundamental Flaw in Islam.

Just to share it with the viewers of this blog, please.

 TselKage wrote:

The Quran states that Jesus was a prophet of Allah and nothing more; however if we assume this to be true, why would he lie of being the son of God? It seems to me that Islam has given a position to Jesus that is evidently paradoxical. I find this to be the biggest flaw in Islam, and I can’t see any sensible justification for this contradiction.

EDIT:: My address has been resolved in the comments below by numerous people.

[–]TselKage[S] 0 points 22 hours ago

I have provided many proofs below on how Jesus equates himself to Godhood, I recommend you look into these points and warn you of the potential hypocrisy of a frivolous reversal of when Jesus was literal and when he was metaphorical. I only say this because I wish to avoid a debate where anyone would simply say he is being metaphorical when he states himself as the Son, and literal in any other occasion when it does not suit one’s belief. I concede the Bible is not without metaphors and the like, however, it would be dangerous to assume everything possible as such when interpreting the Bible; such a behavior would simply belittle the message of the word of God. Once again I urge you to look into my many examples of Jesus’ Godhood below.


One may join the discussion on reddit/r/DebateReligion or here in this blog, please

“Arguments for the singularity of a deity”

July 24, 2017

Just to share the debate I have joined in “https://redd.it/6p8kyx&#8221; on the  topic “Arguments for the singularity of a deity”.

 Doombringer1000Norse Heathen

Hello all. I have realized lately that I have never seen an argument for the singularity of a deity. By this I mean that all arguments I have seen for the existence of any god works equally as well for the existence of many. Of course, you can’t make the leap from “there is a god/gods”, to “this/these god/gods are the only true god/gods because my holy book/elders/religious tradition says so”. I’m looking for logical arguments for either a singular god or a singular pantheon, as I can’t find any.

Of course, as a Norse Heathen, I am a polytheist myself, but I welcome any thought provoking answers to this question. So, if you think I missed some arguments let me know! after 4 UCT I will be at work, so it might take me awhile to respond; however, I will attempt to get back to every top level comment I receive.

Thank you in advance, and best wishes.


Can you please explain your train of thought? As it is, your statement is incoherent.



“Wikipedia and Beyond”

June 13, 2017

About Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, useful information:

Jimmy Wales’ sprawling vision

“Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, lives in a house fit for a grandmother. The progenitor and public face of one of the 10 most popular websites in the world beds down in a one-story bungalow on a cul-de-sac near St. Petersburg, Florida. The neighborhood, with its scrubby vegetation and plastic lawn furniture, screams “Bingo Night.” Inside the house, the décor is minimal, and the stucco and cool tile floors make the place echo. A few potted plants bravely attempt domesticity. Out front sits a cherry red Hyundai.”

One may like to read more @


“Is the Quran fireproof?”

June 12, 2017

The above is a thread started by someone at my favorite discussion forum   (https://www.religiousforums.com/), for some good reasons which I don’t want to contest, I cannot presently participate in the discussion . One could participate in the discussion by clicking post #1 or just view the discussion at the forum.

I have liked following posts on the subject:

#12 , #16 and  #17 , 


Paarsurrey comments:

Quran is a revelation that descended on the heart of Muhammad by God and the whole of it is memorized by heart by the Muslims, and those who cannot memorize it they at least memorize a part of it, from the times of Muhammad. If the intention of those who burnt it to destroy it, they cannot do it from the hearts of the Muslims.

As a second measure, Quran was also written down in the times of Muhammad and standardized by his Caliphs, and the non-standard copies were burnt by the Caliph themselves. So burning of Quran with a good intention is no wrong.

In fact, the worn out copies of Quran or torn pages of it are lawful to be burnt or to put them in a flowing stream or river or a lake or in the sea, to dispose them off.

It is the intention of those who do it, that matters. If the intention is wrong then it is just a childish measure done by some insane individuals, they must be answerable to the law of land where the bad act has been done.

Sure, it is a condemnable act.


One may like to view the following article:

Qur’an Disposal


I give an excerpt from it:

“When Muslims want to respectfully dispose of a text of the Qur’an that is no longer usable, we will burn it. So if someone, for example, in their own private collection or library had a text of the Qur’an that was damaged or that was in disrepair, so the binding was ruined, etc., or it got torn, they might bring it by to the Islamic Center and ask that someone here dispose of it properly if they were unsure how to do that. And what I’ll do is I’ll take it to my fireplace at home and burn it there in the fireplace. So I sort of take the pages out and then burn it to make sure that it gets thoroughly charred and is no longer recognizable as script.”

Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly


One would also like to read the following comments on the above site:

Most Islamic scholars agree that burning old copies of the Quran, in a respectful manner in a clean place, is acceptable as a last resort. In this case, one must ensure that the burning is complete, meaning that no words are left legible and the pages have been fully destroyed. At no time should a Quran be burned with the regular trash. Some add that the ashes should then be buried or scattered in running water (see above).
The permission for this practice comes from the early Muslims, at the time of Caliph Uthman bin Affan. After the official, agreed-upon version of the Quran had been compiled in a consistent dialect of Arabic, the official version was copied while the old or nonconforming Qurans were burned.

As always in life, it is not the act as much as it is the intention.