23 Oct 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWell for the one who believes in the validity of the biblical account there is some assuming of sorts I would say. However I guess it is how we look at or approach the account. Either factual or not. I see your point though.
I'm not claiming that Jesus wasn't resurrected (although I can't say I believe he was), I just noticed that you had made some unwarranted assumptions regarding the biblical account.
Manny
23 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceEddy was a fraud and she never brought anybody back from the dead😵
So, you evidently did not look up the history to the fact that she had brought him back from the death bed, as it laid upon his brow, the hew of death.
When Mary "passed" at age 89 they took her organs out to donate for whomever and found them to be as if she were -under- 20!
Death -shall- die, for this corruptible when he puts on incorruption GONNA swallow it up! Therefore Life recognized IS Eternity!
23 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleFor as intelligent as you seem to express you are, you sure don't give a flyin flipp'n foo to back up such accusations of a woman that has done just AS Christ, and would always say "Follow my teachings AS LONGS AS they follow Christ's, and by no means more."...
Eddy was a fraud and she never brought anybody back from the dead😵
It is remarkable the things this lady has brought to the surface for mankind.
She once went to a woman's house with a malnutritioned child, bone and flesh, and entering into her house, went to the child in her crib, picked her up, hugged her a bit and kissed her on the cheek, then put her back into the crib.
Within 15 min. while Mary was speaking with the mother, the child had managed to get out of the crib, running around completely restored, as any other child at her age would look.
I offer this as a gift to any of you if desired to see a little more on her.
http://christianscience.com/lectures/lecture-video/healing-with-scientific-certainty-through-the-christ/
23 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceGo on, kindly please name the ones Eddy raised from the dead. The links you provide prove nothing more than the fact that Eddy was a fraud who run her bussiness perfectly😵
For as intelligent as you seem to express you are, you sure don't give a flyin flipp'n foo to back up such accusations of a woman that has done just AS Christ, and would always say "Follow my teachings AS LONGS AS they follow Christ's, and by no means more."...
It is remarkable the things this lady has brought to the surface for mankind.
She onc ...[text shortened]... anscience.com/lectures/lecture-video/healing-with-scientific-certainty-through-the-christ/
23 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleMary Baker Eddy - Google Books Result
Go on, kindly please name the ones Eddy raised from the dead. The links you provide prove nothing more than the fact that Eddy was a fraud who run her bussiness perfectly😵
Gillian Gill - 1999 - Biography & Autobiography - 776 pages
... Eddy brought Frye back from the dead. George Kinter, a secretary, gives the most detailed and dramatic account of the healing he witnessed in 1905. One ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0738202274... is one, just as Christ had Lazarus
http://books.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG] this link will show you Frye's resurrection.
23 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceKindly please do not copy and paste; I will not read your religious material and I will not follow your preaching anyway. My intention is solely a genuine conversation -if you can proceed this way, that is😵
the link's too long, I'll cpy pste the important part
23 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceThis account is just an anecdotal evidence since there were no medical professionals on hand to certify that Frye's death had really occurred, so I dismiss it😵
You can find this information in "Mary Baker Eddy (Radcliffe Biography Series)" on page 400 sharing this testimony
23 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceI conduct strictly the evaluation of the mind and I readjust constantly my point of attention; kindly please feel free to honour your spiritual teachers and to create your own reality and thus your own world -keeping in mind that your "absolute truth" is "absolute truth" solely to yourself. Preaching blindly is futile; following somebody else's footprints blindly is futile; beleive blindly nobody; discard my words, conduct your own evaluation of the mind and earn herenow your own originality;
I easily could see you a great metaphysician practitioner. But, then again, that would not limit out ANY ONE that is on this group of replies here, nor any other individual who DESIRED to do so...
May You Always Be Happy
😵
23 Oct 10
6 edits
Originally posted by black beetleit is n doubt a good point that you make dear beetle, however, the actual account
In my opinion both references are apologetic. Methinks the first fails because it is inconsistent with our knowledge (the Roman guards would never act the way it is reported by the autor of the gospal of Matthew), and the second is out of order too because, as you said, it is nothing but a religious apocryphal quote and thus it cannot be considered an historical fact😵
itself has some good points which seem to me to take it from the realms of myth
and lend themselves more to the 'ring of truth;', than a merely fabricated story.
1.the report is made by two women to the apostles, why? in a male dominated
society like Palestine at the time it would hardly be appropriate for women, to have
been first to receive the resurrected Christ, and yet it was, not only that, but the
reaction of the apostles also is noteworthy, in that they immediately dismissed their
claims. Its in these very human elements me thinks that the truth of the text can be
established.
(Luke 24:11) 11 However, these sayings appeared as nonsense to them and they
would not believe the women. . .
2. In this regard, please notice the reaction of Peter, (Luke 24:12) . . .But Peter rose
and ran to the memorial tomb, and, stooping forward, he beheld the bandages
alone. So he went off, wondering within himself at what had occurred. . .
this is entirely in harmony with what we can discern of the Character of Peter, that
he was indeed an impetuous man, had he not jumped into the water, cut of the ear
of a servant with a sword, yes indeed, its this very human element which suggests
we are reading a narrative of truth rather than a work of fiction!
3.The account in John tells us that both Peter and John ran to the memorial tomb,
indeed , not only that but John, being younger, outran the older Peter,
(John 20:4) . . .Yes, the two together began to run; but the other disciple ran ahead
of Peter with greater speed and reached the memorial tomb first. . .,
indeed, why would a work of mere fabrication mention these details, it hardly seems
worthwhile nor important dear beetle to a mere mythology.
4. Please notice the term with which Magdalene refers to the resurrected Christ upon
coming to a realisation that it was him, the term, 'Rabboni', a Galilean form of the
expression and reflective of the custom and dialect of the time, not to mention
carrying a little more affection than the simple , Rabbi', and not a little evidential
me thinks as well!
there are of course other instances of both culture and custom, but its these
particularly human elements that lend themselves to the account and which itself
produces a kind of 'ring of truth', rather than a work of mere fabrication.
I apologise for the length of text dear beetle but there are so mane elements in a
carpet or tapestry that one needs to bind together to form a whole 🙂