What is Christianity?

His being alive after the resurrection but before the ascension is sufficient to make the case that He's also alive after the ascension.However, if you want something from after the ascension, it's in Revelation: What does it mean? Well, I believe I'll get to see Him in the flesh eventually, in a human body, a real person, able to talk to me.

Again, how is that evidence that Jesus is alive today?What does "Jesus is alive today" even mean.And no quote from Revelation addresses anything today. And will you be alive at that time?What does that even mean? Edited by jar, : missed second assertion.

Yes I will be alive at that time. I will be me, in a lovely new body that can't get sick or weak. Alive is alive jar, I don't know why you are having such a problem with the concept.

You say it is a new body that will not get sick or weak.That does not fit anything we know of that is alive.What does "Jesus is alive today" mean?What does "Yes I will be alive at that time. I will be me, in a lovely new body that can't get sick or weak." mean in relation to what we know today as being alive?AbE:Let me try an example all should be familiar with, George Washington's hatchet he used to chop down the cherry tree. The handle had been replaced a few times and the head at least once, but it's the very same hatchett.HUH?You will have a new body but you will still be you?What does that mean?Edited by jar, : see AbE:

What we know today as "alive" is really more dead than alive because of the Fall which brought every kind of disease, deformity and death into the world. This is indicated when scripture says unbelievers are "dead in their sins." It is also implied in the message that the gospel "quickens" or brings to life that which was dead. It is implied in Jesus' saying He gives us eternal life. Being born again means to be born into a new life, a true new life. The resurrection from the dead in a certain sense occurs already, or at least begins, when a person is born again. So the new body believers can expect to have (I realize I jumped the gun on this since we won't have it until the Final Judgment when all are resurrected. Until then, as I understand it, we will have the life of spirits.) The TRUE life, the life God originally created, is disease-free and can't die. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that still tells us nothing Faith.We recognize most things that are alive as alive and things that are not alive as not alive.Only in the Princess Bride do distinctions like "What we know today as "alive" is really more dead than alive because of the Fall which brought every kind of disease, deformity and death into the world. "In addition, not all Christianity believes there was a Fall and the Bible stories in Genesis 2&3 do not describe a Fall.But that is the closest to actually being a description of what you think Christianity is even if so much of it seem just word salad and unintelligible.

It may tell YOU nothing, but that's because you work so hard to eliminate the truth. For believers it's rich with information.

Then perhaps you can share whatever information is there.

Do you believe that God exists? Do you believe that God is alive? If so, what do these statements mean?

I believe that God exists.I do not believe God is alive.I cannot imagine or describe what such a state might be but it certainly is not alive in the way we use the term alive.Perhaps, once I have died, I might have some understanding but until then I must admit that I am and I am very likely to remain clueless.

Your insistence that Jesus is not alive because YOU have a problem understanding the concept, and God, and your incessant contradiction of the Bible on any concept that you personally have a problem with, and your general attitude in post after post that what the historical Church thinks is wrong because YOU have a problem with what the Church thinks, is a level of arrogance that I can't fathom.I quote scripture and you say it means nothing. Obviously it means nothing to YOU but who are you to judge the Bible and judge two thousand years of Christian understanding? Who cares what YOU understand about it anyway? In this post you say you are clueless almost in a humble way but such an attitude is so rare I'm sure you don't mean it: if you are clueless that implies a fault with the concept that God is alive, not with you. If you said you don't get it, with some sense that the fault is on you, that would be fine, but you don't, what YOU don't understand trumps what the Bible says and the whole history of Christian belief. The way YOU read the Bible is the right way, no matter how many respected commentators disagree with you. They are "shills" or "marketing" something. Unbelievable arrogance. Christian doctrine is a historical consensus, not a one-man show.The Bible calls God the "living God" in thirty different places. Here's the first: If you don't get it that's YOUR fault, not the Bible's. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Does that mean you canimagine or describe Gods state of existence then?I'd love to hear this description.

An assertion by folk who wrote the various Bible stories is not really very strong evidence of anything Faith, particularly when it is a fact that so much that is said to be fact in the Bible stories is simply false and the product of ignorance.The topic though is to try to define what people think is Christianity. You have one version and this is the place where you can try to present what YOU think is Christianity.You will notice that I have never denied or claimed that your beliefs are not a version of Christianity.

As I have explained to you many, many, many, many times, no I cannot imagine or describe GOD's state. Nor, at least as long as I am a alive can I see any reasonable way that might be possible.But as I have explained to you many, many, many, many times I can describe the state of God(s) and god(s). They are a human construct, a product of our imagination.This is made abundantly clear in the Bible stories themselves; the God character of Genesis 1 is described entirely differently than the much older God character of Genesis 2&3. Each reflects how the people of that particular era, tradition, mythos saw God.I'm reasonably certain that all of the various God(s) and god(s) descriptions are wrong though.

I am not arguing with your belief. I am disputing your logic.On one hand you say you do NOT believe God is alive because: But on the other hand you do believe that God exists despite similarly being unable to "imagine or describe" what such a state of 'existence' might entail.Its logically inconsistent is my point.