Sorry, simple question but.....

Originally posted by jaywill
Where's the hyperbole?

Where's the "gross error"?

The question was:
"...in which book of the New Testiment does Jesus rise from the dead?"

You answered 27. Then you answered 15.

That is wildly inaccurate. There is your gross error, for the question is clearly asking for which books provide the account of Jesus' resurrection. The later epistles are drawing upon those 4 accounts, and John's Chistology in particular, and providing an interpretation of what the resurrection should mean to their listeners, and not an accounting of the resurrection itself.

Your interpretation otherwise is severely flawed given the context of the question.

Originally posted by Badwater
The question was:
"...in which book of the New Testiment does Jesus rise from the dead?"

You answered 27. Then you answered 15.

That is wildly inaccurate. There is your gross error, for the question is clearly asking for which books provide the account of Jesus' resurrection. The later epistles are drawing upon those 4 accounts, and John's Chistology ...[text shortened]... self.

Your interpretation otherwise is severely flawed given the context of the question.

This is not "severly flawed" or "gross error". This is a little over addressing his/her simple question for the sake of the good news.

It is taking some license to expand the question perhaps to, "In which books is Jesus risen from the dead?"

I think you are overreacting. Romans 8:11 says '"And if the Spirit of the One who raised Christ Jesus the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your moral bodies through His Spirit who indwells you."

My answer is preachy. Well it should be. It is great news - His resurrection. After all He rose so that He could impart His life and Spirit into man.

But for you to be up in arms with this being "gross error" and "severly flawed" may simply be your resentment of my emphasizing that His being risen from the dead is applicable to believers in a practical way.

You under appreciate the significance of His being raised from the dead. In a very real sense Romans 8 does speak of Christ's rising from the dead for our release from the fallen sin dominated body. This is good news. I want the questioner to know about this.

I'd rather be livingly wrong than dead right.

Likewise Romans speaks of His resurrection this way "For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God thrugh the DEATH of His Son, much more we will be saved in His LIFE, having been reconciled." (Rom. 5:11)

Death and resurrection of Christ there is applicable to man's practical salvation. Because He has risen we can be both reconciled to God and saved daily in the sphere and realm of His life, His resurrection life.

I took the liberty to include these utterances in refering to His rising from the dead. And though you have a little literary point I think you are overreacting.

For a gospel preacher it would be "gross error" and "severly flawed" for me to miss the opportunity to empasize that Christ's rising from the dead is extremly meaningful to believers now, today.

We who have experienced the Christ Who is risen, alive, available, real, experiential, and enjoyable are excited to let people know that Christ is resurrected and can be known.

Maybe you just don't have anything worth telling anyone.

Originally posted by surtism

Thanks
P[/b]

==========================
Sorry, simple question but ....

... in which book of the New Testiment does Jesus rise from the dead? Or is the story told in lots of books, but from different points of view?
===============================

Sorry, a little overblown answer. But Christ's wonderful and glorious resurrection is discribed mainly in the four Gospels and in the book of Acts.

I encourage you to read it for yourself. You could start with Matthew 26 and read to the end of Matthew (chapter 28).

To know where in the Bible He resurrected is wonderful/ But to know HIM, the One Who is resurrected is even more wonderful.

Don't be turned away from meeting the risen Jesus Christ by the "correctness police" here like Badwater.

Originally posted by FMF
Originally posted by chappy1
[b]No it wouldn't

It was a rhetorical question.

Quite clearly your definition of "fact" is completely subjective. It enables anyone who feels absolutely certain about something, for whatever reason, to be autonomously declared a "fact".

I was pointing something out to you. It was clearly not a 'question'.[/b]

....and I'm telling you that you are in error. The Bible is based on evidence. Eye witness evidence- so I was just pointing out the fact that your comment didn't make any kind of sense.

Originally posted by chappy1
....and I'm telling you that you are in error. The Bible is based on evidence. Eye witness evidence- so I was just pointing out the fact that your comment didn't make any kind of sense.

All the best to you.