He has not been alive for hundreds of years. That means PAST tense, or did you fail grammar along with science?
2007-12-15 04:48:51 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you believe He is the Living Lord, it is not ridiculous at all.
2007-12-15 04:54:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not at all ridiculous! According to the Gospels, he was resurrected and is alive eternally. You may not choose to accept that, but apparently you accept the assertions that he existed in the first place, and died, because they are part of your premise. There is no better authority for those assertions.
There are times when the past tense is appropriate in reference to Jesus, and you are of course free to decide that you will use it consistently. But your choice is not the only reasonable one.
It would also be excessively restricted. We use present tense in connection with other historical figures, even though we don't claim they are still alive. One might say that "Aristotle teaches thus-and-so..." for example, because his writings still teach it, long after his death.
2007-12-15 12:58:45 · answer #2 · answered by Samwise 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's equally ridiculous as talking about Julius Caesar as if he's actively involved in World poltics. The claim to have a relationship with the risen Jesus is no more valid than my claim to have a relationship with the risen Elvis who now is alive and well and sits at the right hand of the throne of God.
Neither claim has the slightest evidential basis and is more evidence of lunacy than spirituality. Nobody in existence can disprove my claim that Elvis now sits at the right hand of God! Therefore, it must be true? Not at all, that's the Ad Ignorantium fallacy or appeal to ignorance. You can't prove it, therefore it is false or you can't disprove it, therefore it is true. Both invalid. Nor does majority opinion constitute the definition of truth. 90% of the World believes in an afterlife. At one time virtually 100% believed the world was flat and the moon shined with its own light. Both WRONG. Truth isn't determined by taking a vote or majority opinion. That's another major fallacy, the Democratic fallacy.
2007-12-15 12:57:40 · answer #3 · answered by Keira D 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, I just had my groceries carried out by a guy named Jesus. I thought talking to him was pretty normal.
Plus, I talk to Jesus in the present tense because he is part of the Holy Trinity and died for my sins.
Hey Lars, Merry Christmas!!!!
2007-12-15 16:31:02 · answer #4 · answered by jimstock60 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the theology Jesus is eternal. You will find that Buddhists speak of Siddhartha in the present tense-it's no different for other faiths.
2007-12-15 12:58:47 · answer #5 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well there Ya go Lars, ya got the base all riled up. jesus himself was considered a Rabble Rouser by the Authorities, so you're in good company!!!!
But now be level handed and ask the same of Buddha or the Hindu's God/Gods or the Scientologists or the Mormons?
Do they believe that satan was Jesus' brother or not???
2007-12-15 13:01:18 · answer #6 · answered by col. Kurtz 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Think of him as the only reason for love .According to the bible he was given as the pefect sacrifice so that you would be filled with good things and not be sent to hell. Hell is the place where dead people live that Satan used and miss led after they pass from our sight But in Jesus case. HE is given today as the eternal spiritual priest of the faithful which gives us a new purpose as he redeems and renews those lost souls that will hear him today, not when your dead. Can you say "For the love of GOD"
2007-12-15 13:09:32 · answer #7 · answered by true 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tell me what is grammatically wrong with this statement. Jesus is my personal savior. His teachings save me from sadness and grief each day. By the way ... it's true. It's all present tense.
I'm happy to clear that little mystery up for you. Thank you for asking this question.
2007-12-15 13:07:55 · answer #8 · answered by Homeschool produces winners 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the idea of Jesus living among us was a good (and believeable) 2,000 years ago. Without modern technology, it would have seemed logical that an outside force had an impact on humanity.
But there are so many people who are resitant to change and will not think about considering other options. For example; evolution vs. intelligent design (aka: creationism). Living 2,000 years ago, who would have thought that organisms coudl change over time? But now, there is proof behind evolution, and intelligant design being irrational.
2007-12-15 12:59:05 · answer #9 · answered by eb494 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The Holy Spirit is the answer.
It is true that Jesus Christ, the person, the man, physically has not been among us on the earth for 2000 years, but he sent the Holy Spirit, which is indeed with us, and in us.
It is part of the Trinity. And it is very much present tense.
And for those who believe on Jesus Christ, he is quite real at this moment, and with them, just as God, Mighty Yahweh is.
2007-12-15 12:54:09 · answer #10 · answered by Digital Age 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because Jesus is alive...remember??...He was resurrected from the grave, conquering death, and satisfying the penelty of sin for man...He sits at the right hand of the Father and will judge all mankind...are you ready?
2007-12-15 13:02:20 · answer #11 · answered by greatrightwingconspiritor 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋