Catholicism and Hell... I'm so confused

[Nathan]

Nathan, believe it or not, I actually believe a most of what you just wrote.

There is a spiritual aspect to the vision Peter, James and John saw. I'm not saying they saw a vision and that's that.

But if you really, honestly believe Moses and Elijah are somehow alive, then it is impossible for you to believe Jesus is the firstfruit of vivification and impossible for you to believe John when he wrote that "no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven."

Those passages are definitive.

Sorry Tony . . .but I'm not going to roll with this one . . .you say you agree with most of what I said but either you decieve yourself . . .or . .the areas where you don't agree are so great that it over rides the "most" parts that you do.  "if" there were any truth to what you're trying to tell me now, then there would not be the vast differences between your stuff and mine.  But that's just simply not the case. 

Doc is spot on . . .the letter kills . . .and much of the arguments pertaining to word definitions (aion and any variances pertaining to . .. ) are great debates . . .but in the end . .what exactly was it that you accomplished?  It is clear you know your homework, but is that what we are measured by?  The longer those arguments are stretched out, the higher the opportunity for elevated fights to manifest. 

There is a theory that the one who has the last word to an argument wins . . . I know . . .I use it all the time . .but that doesn't make me right . . .it just makes me more obnoxious next time.

I know you agree that "some" things can be taken spiritually . . .but I want to challenge you bro . . .push the envelope here . . .because "if" some things are spiritual . . . who says that not all things are spiritual?  And "if" some things are spiritual . . . who has the unlimited wisdom to decide which is and which isn't? 

And if it's not spiritual . . . then what is it really worth?    Is moral more valuable than spiritual?  Is natural more beneficial than spiritual?  If either of those are true, then why doesn't the Bible tell me that God uses spiritual pictures to reveal natural truth?  Or that God gives spiritual messages in order for us to receive moral principle? 

Does kicking an openly sinful person out of my church . . .really purge my church of unrighteousness?  I'm referring to where Paul is instructing the church he's writing to, to remove the guy that's sexually active with his mother-in-law or someone like that . . not sure who she was, but it was clearly a sinful thing going on . . .

So Paul explains to them to cut the guy out from the congregation . . .and we preach that we're to do the same . . . but there are so many other areas where we're not on the same alignment as Paul was . . .that this brings more division than it does healing.  I'm just using this one subject as an example I've pulled out fo the air. 

Just as I see there is a Judas in me . . .there is also this guy . . .it's always a picture of my nature within that the sermon is directed at . .not to the people without  . . .but to my nature within.  Within me, there is a carnal side that wants to openly sleep with anyone it chooses . . .mainly because it feels so good to gratify the flesh.  But I'm to take captive those thoughts . . .I'm to remove that kind of nature from my temple . . . cast it into the fire . . .the one that purifies . . .and just as with this guy Paul was speaking about . . .after a time, this nature can return back to my temple . . .once it's been reformed by the fire. 

There are parts of our nature that are not evil in and of themselves . . .they've just got a darkness in them that needs to be exposed to the light for a while . . .but when the carnality is burned off . . .the nature that's a part of my personality . . .that part itself is restored back to me . .and I . . .my body . . .my way of thinking and living benefits from that which was once separated from me, but then reformed and returned back to me . .. so that "I" may mature fully in the likeness of the one who calls me home.   . . .I don't mean the one who calls ME home . . .like . . .away from here . . .but I mean that "I" am home to the Spirit . ..he calls me his "home". 

[Tony N]

I think Nathan (and others) are making some good points here.
One of the criticisms that Jesus leveled at the religious leaders of his day was that they searched the scriptures thinking that they would find life in that; but Jesus told them that the scriptures point to HIM, (which is where they and we should be finding our life).
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Doc, what exactly do you mean by: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

I mean that I understand that statement from scripture to mean (among other things) that the written word is not where Life is found:

2Co 3:3 for you are manifesting a letter of Christ, dispensed by us, and engraven, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart."
2Co 3:4 Now such is the confidence we have through Christ toward God
2Co 3:5 (not that we are competent of ourselves, to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our competency is of God),
2Co 3:6 Who also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying." (CLV)

The manifestation of the letter written on our hearts via the spirit is what is giving life, not our limited human logical reasonings from the written word. The new covenant is not dispensed by the letter, but by the spirit.

If our understanding of the Truth that scripture points to is limited to or by our logical understanding/ interpretation of the written word, we're missing the boat entirely when it comes to comprehending the spiritual things of the new covenant that go beyond the written word.

Dear doc,
After reading what you wrote concerning "the letter kills," I would have to say, according to your understanding, all you just wrote is dead and kills. Why? Because they are made of letters (according to your understanding).

The letters written concerning Christ dying for my sins brings life to no one (according to your understanding).
We should burn our bibles for they are made up of letters which just kill. The evangel? Death. It brings life to no one because it is written in the bible.

Do you see where your understanding is leading you? Down a dark dark road.

Joh 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

How do we know the words He spoke to us unless we see the words He spoke as written to us? Oh, and those words? He said they are spirit and they are life.

So how are we to take "the letter is killing but the spirit gives life"?

The letter (according to the context) is the letter of the law inscribed in stone. The law kills. It did not give life to anyone. Even Paul said that the law slew him.

It doesn't mean that Paul's words kill so you have to look beyond his words for some esoteric spiritual aspect so you can live.

Nathan, the above lesson is for you too for you wrote: "Doc is spot on . . .the letter kills . . . ."

Doc is spot off.

[Nathan]

   Gasp!  What?  You disagree with me????  Stunned I am!

[Doc]

I think Nathan (and others) are making some good points here.
One of the criticisms that Jesus leveled at the religious leaders of his day was that they searched the scriptures thinking that they would find life in that; but Jesus told them that the scriptures point to HIM, (which is where they and we should be finding our life).
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Doc, what exactly do you mean by: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

I mean that I understand that statement from scripture to mean (among other things) that the written word is not where Life is found:

2Co 3:3 for you are manifesting a letter of Christ, dispensed by us, and engraven, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart."
2Co 3:4 Now such is the confidence we have through Christ toward God
2Co 3:5 (not that we are competent of ourselves, to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our competency is of God),
2Co 3:6 Who also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying." (CLV)

The manifestation of the letter written on our hearts via the spirit is what is giving life, not our limited human logical reasonings from the written word. The new covenant is not dispensed by the letter, but by the spirit.

If our understanding of the Truth that scripture points to is limited to or by our logical understanding/ interpretation of the written word, we're missing the boat entirely when it comes to comprehending the spiritual things of the new covenant that go beyond the written word.

Dear doc,
After reading what you wrote concerning "the letter kills," I would have to say, according to your understanding, all you just wrote is dead and kills. Why? Because they are made of letters (according to your understanding).

The letters written concerning Christ dying for my sins brings life to no one (according to your understanding).
We should burn our bibles for they are made up of letters which just kill. The evangel? Death. It brings life to no one because it is written in the bible.

Do you see where your understanding is leading you? Down a dark dark road.

Joh 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

How do we know the words He spoke to us unless we see the words He spoke as written to us? Oh, and those words? He said they are spirit and they are life.

So how are we to take "the letter is killing but the spirit gives life"?

The letter (according to the context) is the letter of the law inscribed in stone. The law kills. It did not give life to anyone. Even Paul said that the law slew him.

It doesn't mean that Paul's words kill so you have to look beyond his words for some esoteric spiritual aspect so you can live.

Nathan, the above lesson is for you too for you wrote: "Doc is spot on . . .the letter kills . . . ."

Doc is spot off.

Really Tony? I don't see anything there written about the "law inscribed in stone". What I see there is the "letter written in ink".

How do we know the word unless we read it? He speaks it into (writes it on) our hearts, and every biblical reference to receiving the Word I can think of is to hearing the Word, not reading it. Remember that the early NT Church didn't even have the NT yet.

Your post indicates to me that you completely missed the point of what I wrote, which is really unfortunate. But again, that's because you're being too literal.
You also seem to think that my understanding is leading me down a dark path. But that's really no different a point of view than our ET believing pastor, who thinks that anyone who has an understanding that leads them to accept UR is on a path to hell. Your wording and his are strikingly similar, even though they're applied to somewhat different subjects.

It becomes very easy to be judgmental when you see things as black and white, and become dogmatic about them. I should know, because that's the background I came from.

[Tony N]

Dear Doc, I'm not being judgmental. Geegollygosh! This is just a message board where we are exchanging thoughts.

How do I know "the letter is killing" is concerning the law?

Let's look at the evidence:


2Co 3:3 for you are manifesting a letter of Christ, dispensed by us, and engraven, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart."
2Co 3:4 Now such is the confidence we have through Christ toward God
2Co 3:5 (not that we are competent of ourselves, to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our competency is of God),
2Co 3:6 Who also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying."

The law of Moses was originally engraven on stone tablets. It was the old covenant. Those letters engraven on stone tablets is killing.

Even Paul said the law killed him.

This is not talking about the letters in the New Testament.

Albert Barne's Notes on the Bible states on the letter is killing:

"For the letter killeth - compare notes on Rom_4:15; Rom_7:9-10. The mere letter of the Law of Moses. The effect of it was merely to produce condemnation; to produce a sense of guilt, and danger, and not to produce pardon, relief, and joy. The Law denounced death; condemned sin in all forms; and the effect of it was to produce a sense of guilt and condemnation."

A.E. Knoch wrote in Concordant Commentary:

"6 The covenant of the letter is the law of Moses which was engraven in stone, to symbolize its unyielding sternness. There is no reference to the letter of Scripture. It is the law that kills, just as it is the spirit (through the letter of Scripture) that gives life. The sayings that Christ spoke are both spirit and life to all who believe them."

[Doc]

Dear Doc, I'm not being judgmental. Geegollygosh! This is just a message board where we are exchanging thoughts.

You stated earlier: "Do you see where your understanding is leading you? Down a dark dark road."

Now, maybe it's just me, but I read that as being judgmental....

How do I know "the letter is killing" is concerning the law?

Let's look at the evidence:


2Co 3:3 for you are manifesting a letter of Christ, dispensed by us, and engraven, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart."
2Co 3:4 Now such is the confidence we have through Christ toward God
2Co 3:5 (not that we are competent of ourselves, to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our competency is of God),
2Co 3:6 Who also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying."

The law of Moses was originally engraven on stone tablets. It was the old covenant. Those letters engraven on stone tablets is killing.

Even Paul said the law killed him.

This is not talking about the letters in the New Testament.

Albert Barne's Notes on the Bible states on the letter is killing:

"For the letter killeth - compare notes on Rom_4:15; Rom_7:9-10. The mere letter of the Law of Moses. The effect of it was merely to produce condemnation; to produce a sense of guilt, and danger, and not to produce pardon, relief, and joy. The Law denounced death; condemned sin in all forms; and the effect of it was to produce a sense of guilt and condemnation."

A.E. Knoch wrote in Concordant Commentary:

"6 The covenant of the letter is the law of Moses which was engraven in stone, to symbolize its unyielding sternness. There is no reference to the letter of Scripture. It is the law that kills, just as it is the spirit (through the letter of Scripture) that gives life. The sayings that Christ spoke are both spirit and life to all who believe them."

 Fair enough, but Knoch's statement is still missing the point we're discussing. The sayings of Christ were not written down until later. The Spirit doesn't need the letter to give life as Knoch appears to be claiming here. It's interesting that after he makes this comment, he says The sayings that Christ spoke are both spirit and life to all who believe them.

My point is that the "letter" in whatever form, is more or less irrelevant to the spiritual things of the new covenant. Christ's words are spirit and life, certainly, but they don't have to be conveyed in written form. It is the spirit behind the form that vivifies, not the form that the spirit takes.
 
Trying to say that specific wording conveys all spiritual truth is an error. You seem to be suggesting, if not actually saying, that anyone (or, at least me) who does not agree with your interpretation based on this approach to scripture is wrong and in (spiritual) darkness.

That's the way it's coming across, even if that's not your intent.

[jabcat]

Modified post;  IMO, Jesus was God's logos and rhema become flesh.  He didn't come as a substitute or replacement for scripture/God's Word, or to diminish it or do away with it.  He was God's Word with flesh on it, for 33 years.  Paul said every word is inspired/God breathed.  It's a total package, incorporated within Jesus.  It pleased God that all He was dwelled within His Son. 

IMO, in context of reconciling "the whole of scripture", the letter kills if NOT revealed and applied in our lives BY the Spirit...if we just use it as head knowlege, "the law", i.e., in a harmful manner.

May I make a gentle reminder that the default setting at TM is "seeking truth within/compatible with", scripture.  Interpretation, layers of revelation, translational issues etc. are fair game and useful for edification.

[reFORMer]

(I wish someone could splice this into another thread.  We're back to the "natural vs. spiritual" thing.  I wish we'd speak of this as "literal or symbolic" rather than "literal or spiritual;" but, it probably won't happen it is so entrenched in our usage.  Another mislabeling is decrying the church when it should be called Babylon, not the church which is God's girlfriend.  Ah, well...)
------------------------------------------------------------

I saw a young woman on a stage, which from a distance looked somewhat more impressive than close-up where the black paint was scuffed and dirty.  She was confidently saying something to the effect that,  "...by using the Bible symbolically rather that literally is central to the great deception the Bible warned was coming upon people in these last days.  By trying to use what should be directly understood to instead stand for allegories they will make it say anything they want."  Hearing this was so indescribably frustrating to me; but, I was just a spirit, floating horizontal to the stage at about the level of her head.  I reached for her jaw as she was speaking such adversarial words without understanding.  Even as I thought I couldn't affect something in the material realm, being just a spirit, I discovered to my surprise I was not only moving her jaw, but affecting her own being at a spiritual level such that she was very shaken, staggering backward with her mouth hanging open.  The word that was then spoken to me was:  "I will have a people who have been taught of me."  This gave me great comfort.

You do know that is what racial dispensationalists teach?  I've heard Hal Lindsay, John MacArthur and others say it.  It is a very uninformed view that robs believers of much wealth and knowledge.  Not only history of interpretation but Scripture itself bears witness to many allegories, types and symbols.

Galatians 4:21-31, (AV)...
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

It this passage concerning the symbolic an example for emulation in additional portions of the law, a kind of key to what else God would decode to our wondering eyes or does it describe a limit?


your brother, James Rohde

[Tony N]

I copied this from a post I recently made on another thread..."as far as scripture itself....IMO, Jesus was God's logos and rhema become flesh.  He didn't come as a substitute or replacement for scripture/God's Word, or to diminish it or do away with it.  He was God's Word with flesh on it, for 33 years.  Paul said every word is inspired/God breathed.  It's a total package, incorporated within Jesus.  It pleased God that all He was dwelled within His Son.  Now that He's returned to Spirit doesn't mean we no longer have any Word...IMO, it's a grave error for us to then diminish, or even put forth the impression that we are diminishing God's Word...either with, or without flesh on it. "

IMO, in context of reconciling "the whole of scripture", the letter kills if NOT revealed and applied in our lives BY the Spirit...if we just use it as head knowlege, "the law", i.e., in a harmful manner.

May I make a gentle reminder (in bold text ) that as we discuss things, there is a "respect for scripture/no textual criticism"  expectation wrt the inspiration and dependability of scripture at TM.  The default setting is "seeking truth within/compatible with", scripture.  Interpretation, layers of revelation, translational issues etc. are fair game and useful for edification.    

Dear jabcat, a couple questions:
How did Jesus return to spirit if He is still flesh and bones? When did He hang up His Son suite? Since He depated as flesh and bones and the messengers told them He would come back as He left how could he depart as spirit? If He departed as spirit they would not have seen Him ascend into heaven for spirit is invisible.

Also your bolded words above seem cryptic to me. What do you mean "no textual criticism"?

What do you mean "expectation wrt the inspiration"?

[jabcat]

Perhaps the reason you think it's cryptic is because in retrospect, reviewing the recent posts again, my statement probably mostly fits best the other thread which I referenced.  I was making a request to maintain a respect for scripture, which IMO, really has no benefit for you personally, because you've never appeared to me to not respect scripture.   And again, a more careful reading of the posts indicates less tendency toward that than I originally perceived in this particular thread.  I'll modify my post, apologize that my quick scanning after just coming from the other thread probably perceived more than what was actually being said here.   Darn, I'm just not always right  .  Don't you just hate that? 

Wrt your textual criticism Q, I'll just generally say, it's what Martin has described as "the trashing of scripture";  its overall necessity, relevance, dependability - not word studies, interpretation, translation, layers of revelation, etc.  This mostly pertained to a time prior to you're coming here, and it was decided that we'd hold to this standard (of which I was attempting a gentle, pleasant reminder) so we wouldn't go down those deep, dark rabbit holes again. 

Wrt to your "Jesus putting on flesh" points;  I see your points, so I'll re-state it as "during His earthly ministry"...
Carry on  .

[Tony N]

What does "Wrt" mean? 
Is it an acronym for some word or words?

[jabcat]

"with regard to"..someone else used it and I had to figure out what it meant too

my main point with that is, IMO, Jesus coming in flesh didn't annull or replace scripture...I see it more as He fulfills/all dwells within Him...that it All works together, is One...not One or the Other...

[Nathan]

Tony . . .why do you supposed Jesus came in the flesh in the first place?

[Tony N]

Tony . . .why do you supposed Jesus came in the flesh in the first place?

He, as the Word, became flesh (John 1:14).

He became flesh so that the flesh could be crucified and the old humanity be put to death in His death and that old humanity be burried but a new creation come  via the resurrection so that "in Christ there is a new creation."

[Nathan]

If you truly believe that . . .then why are you clinging to the idea that he is still flesh . . .did that not get accomplished at the death, burial and resurrection? 

How can you be flesh and live in another dimension . . .(heaven).  If he is still flesh . .what's to stop us from going to heaven?  If he is still flesh, then why did he tell Peter that he's going to a place where they can't follow him?

[Tony N]

If you truly believe that . . .then why are you clinging to the idea that he is still flesh . . .did that not get accomplished at the death, burial and resurrection? 

How can you be flesh and live in another dimension . . .(heaven).  If he is still flesh . .what's to stop us from going to heaven?  If he is still flesh, then why did he tell Peter that he's going to a place where they can't follow him?

It is not that He is just "still flesh" but "flesh and bones."
How can we be flesh and live in another dimmension? The Bible states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.15:50). It doesn't say: "flesh and bones cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "The soul is in the blood" Lev 17:11 "for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood."

So Jesus shed His blood and thus gave His soul. So now He is flesh and bones.

God is going to resurrect dead saints out of their graves. The graves must be opened for this to take place so that their bodies can come forth. The bodies of the saints who are alive when the graves are opened will be changed.

Why go to all that waste of energy and power to open up the graves if they are just going to be spirits in the resurrection?

Christ will come back as flesh and bones because He just will and humans in that future day will need a tangible representation of them to converse with.

[Doc]

If you truly believe that . . .then why are you clinging to the idea that he is still flesh . . .did that not get accomplished at the death, burial and resurrection? 

How can you be flesh and live in another dimension . . .(heaven).  If he is still flesh . .what's to stop us from going to heaven?  If he is still flesh, then why did he tell Peter that he's going to a place where they can't follow him?

It is not that He is just "still flesh" but "flesh and bones."
How can we be flesh and live in another dimmension? The Bible states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.15:50). It doesn't say: "flesh and bones cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "The soul is in the blood" Lev 17:11 "for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood."

So Jesus shed His blood and thus gave His soul. So now He is flesh and bones.

God is going to resurrect dead saints out of their graves. The graves must be opened for this to take place so that their bodies can come forth. The bodies of the saints who are alive when the graves are opened will be changed.

Why go to all that waste of energy and power to open up the graves if they are just going to be spirits in the resurrection?

Christ will come back as flesh and bones because He just will and humans in that future day will need a tangible representation of them to converse with.

Wow, I see some pretty finely split hairs in this post.

But I'm glad you posted it, because this is an excellent demonstration of literalism carried too far.

Though I'm glad you're UR, I'm a bit surprised at it based on your approach.

[WhiteWings]

For starters I'm not taking sides here. I just am asking questions about each point made.

It is not that He is just "still flesh" but "flesh and bones."

Likely I'm the only one in this thread that gets  a little confused by certain words. That is teh double meaning of words. Flesh is also a synonym for sinful nature. So what about 'sin can't enter heaven'

How can we be flesh and live in another dimmension?

Because both of you believe God has infinite power this question is kinda useles. The answer shurely is a big yes.
Yes God has the power to let a human bofy live in heaven.

The Bible states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.15:50). It doesn't say: "flesh and bones cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "The soul is in the blood" Lev 17:11 "for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood."

flesh+blood=ok
flesh+bones=bad
Does that give any indication bones are bad? Is their any double meaning of the word bones?

Why go to all that waste of energy and power to open up the graves if they are just going to be spirits in the resurrection?

Isn't opening graves just asnother way of saying resurrecting?
If eternal life depends on that chances for it just have dropped considerble. What do you think to find in a 4000 year old grave? There can be a spirit (but that's back with God IIRC) but the flesh and bones are all (re)turned to dust.

God is going to resurrect dead saints out of their graves. The graves must be opened for this to take place so that their bodies can come forth. The bodies of the saints who are alive when the graves are opened will be changed.

The saints don't have a body anymore. God has to rebuild that body.

[pneuma]

Hi all just stopped by and read this thread, not going to say much but I think both parties here are missing a KEY and that KEY is  NOT ALL FLESH IS THE SAME FLESH.

Jesus was raised in the FLESH ( and even stated a SPIRIT does not have FLESH as you see that I have) as His body was not to be found and we are to be raised in the FLESH just as He was, but our FLESH is to be CHANGED.

Just remember that which is born of the FLESH is FLESH and that which is born of the SPIRIT is SPIRIT.

So just ask yourselves when Jesus was upon this earth was He born of the FLESH or of the SPIRIT.

And if you say of the SPIRIT which I believe you must then you can understand that His FLESH was/is NOT the same as ours is right now.

[Nathan]

No, I agree with you pnuema.  It's a different flesh . . .which is to say it's not flesh and blood . .nor is it flesh and bones . . .

There's so much amiss here that it's a struggle just having a conversation with any normalcy . . .flesh and blood . .flesh and bones . . .are you kidding me?  Flesh and bones is the natural state . . .Flesh and blood is the carnal state . . .manifesting in the natural.  One can not enter into the invisible without becoming one with the invisible . .otherwise, one remains visible.  the fact that Jesus "disappeared" in the cloud is stating that he transitioned out of the natural into the spiritual . . .otherwise . . .HE'D STILL BE VISIBLE.  

It amazes me of the things we argue over . . . it's no wonder you can't see spiritual patterns.  I still haven't seen your response to the difference between an allegory and a parable . . not that I want to argue that point either, but the truth is . . .the stuff you're arguing over goes beyond logic and reason.  You can't accept that a parable IS and allegory even after the dictionary uses the same word "allegory" in it's definition explaining what a parable is . .this is just nuts.

The only thing I agree with is that we will have new bodies . . . but for me, the new bodies are not going to be bodies of flesh . . .flesh is a temporary place.  We will discard these old canvas tents and put on a new body that enables us to live in the realm we were orginally created for . . .and that's not this natural realm.  Nor is it bodies of flesh.

Graves will open . . .again, you're taking that as literal, physical dirt.   But the grave is a realm of the dead . . .not a hole in the ground.  Sigh . . .exasperating.

The reason I asked about why Christ came in the flesh is because IT'S A DIMENSION.  His redemption isn't JUST for my spirit . .but it's for my soul and body as well.  Every dimension of my nature is redeemed.  But he had to manifest in the flesh so that he could overcome every aspect of our fallen nature.  But now that he's completed ALL OF IT . .. there's NO need for him to return to the flesh again . .because it's not about him serving man/flesh . . .it's about man transforming into HIM.

Your mind has him once again conformed to the flesh . . .which is the root of all our minds.  He is not calling us to walk in the spirit while being conformed, limited, and bound to these bodies of flesh . ..blood . ..bones . . .all one and the same.  But he's calling us to be transformed FROM natural TO spiritual.  And the completion of our end will come either at our physical deaths or at the end of all things natural.

I don't want him to return in the flesh . . . in my natural kingdom/realm . . .I want him to raise me up into his . .and leave this body of flesh in the dust of this temporary dirt realm from which it came.

[Doc]

No, I agree with you pnuema.  It's a different flesh . . .which is to say it's not flesh and blood . .nor is it flesh and bones . . .

There's so much amiss here that it's a struggle just having a conversation with any normalcy . . .flesh and blood . .flesh and bones . . .are you kidding me?  Flesh and bones is the natural state . . .Flesh and blood is the carnal state . . .manifesting in the natural.  One can not enter into the invisible without becoming one with the invisible . .otherwise, one remains visible.  the fact that Jesus "disappeared" in the cloud is stating that he transitioned out of the natural into the spiritual . . .otherwise . . .HE'D STILL BE VISIBLE.  

It amazes me of the things we argue over . . . it's no wonder you can't see spiritual patterns.  I still haven't seen your response to the difference between an allegory and a parable . . not that I want to argue that point either, but the truth is . . .the stuff you're arguing over goes beyond logic and reason.  You can't accept that a parable IS and allegory even after the dictionary uses the same word "allegory" in it's definition explaining what a parable is . .this is just nuts.

The only thing I agree with is that we will have new bodies . . . but for me, the new bodies are not going to be bodies of flesh . . .flesh is a temporary place.  We will discard these old canvas tents and put on a new body that enables us to live in the realm we were orginally created for . . .and that's not this natural realm.  Nor is it bodies of flesh.

Graves will open . . .again, you're taking that as literal, physical dirt.   But the grave is a realm of the dead . . .not a hole in the ground.  Sigh . . .exasperating.

The reason I asked about why Christ came in the flesh is because IT'S A DIMENSION.  His redemption isn't JUST for my spirit . .but it's for my soul and body as well.  Every dimension of my nature is redeemed.  But he had to manifest in the flesh so that he could overcome every aspect of our fallen nature.  But now that he's completed ALL OF IT . .. there's NO need for him to return to the flesh again . .because it's not about him serving man/flesh . . .it's about man transforming into HIM.

Your mind has him once again conformed to the flesh . . .which is the root of all our minds.  He is not calling us to walk in the spirit while being conformed, limited, and bound to these bodies of flesh . ..blood . ..bones . . .all one and the same.  But he's calling us to be transformed FROM natural TO spiritual.  And the completion of our end will come either at our physical deaths or at the end of all things natural.

I don't want him to return in the flesh . . . in my natural kingdom/realm . . .I want him to raise me up into his . .and leave this body of flesh in the dust of this temporary dirt realm from which it came.

Exactly, Nathan and Pneuma. 

[Tony N]

If you truly believe that . . .then why are you clinging to the idea that he is still flesh . . .did that not get accomplished at the death, burial and resurrection? 

How can you be flesh and live in another dimension . . .(heaven).  If he is still flesh . .what's to stop us from going to heaven?  If he is still flesh, then why did he tell Peter that he's going to a place where they can't follow him?

It is not that He is just "still flesh" but "flesh and bones."
How can we be flesh and live in another dimmension? The Bible states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.15:50). It doesn't say: "flesh and bones cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "The soul is in the blood" Lev 17:11 "for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood."

So Jesus shed His blood and thus gave His soul. So now He is flesh and bones.

God is going to resurrect dead saints out of their graves. The graves must be opened for this to take place so that their bodies can come forth. The bodies of the saints who are alive when the graves are opened will be changed.

Why go to all that waste of energy and power to open up the graves if they are just going to be spirits in the resurrection?

Christ will come back as flesh and bones because He just will and humans in that future day will need a tangible representation of them to converse with.

Wow, I see some pretty finely split hairs in this post.

But I'm glad you posted it, because this is an excellent demonstration of literalism carried too far.

Though I'm glad you're UR, I'm a bit surprised at it based on your approach.

I'm glad you made some remarks about my post because they are an excellent demonstration of no help whatsoever to the debate at hand.

[Tony N]

No, I agree with you pnuema.  It's a different flesh . . .which is to say it's not flesh and blood . .nor is it flesh and bones . . .

It wasn't a different flesh. It wasn't different bones. When Jesus said to his disciples:

 "Perceive My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and perceive, for a spirit has not flesh and bones according as you behold Me having" (Luk 24:39),

The disciples didn't say, What flesh? We don't see any flesh?
The disciples didn't say, Whoah! That sure is different flesh! Look! I can't even feel it. It's all spiritual flesh!

Nathan, and pneuma, you sure go to great lengths to make the word of God of none effect.

I don't want him to return in the flesh . . . in my natural kingdom/realm . . .I want him to raise me up into his . .and leave this body of flesh in the dust of this temporary dirt realm from which it came.

What you want and what you are gonna get are two entirely different things. You'll see I'm right on this one some day.

[Doc]

If you truly believe that . . .then why are you clinging to the idea that he is still flesh . . .did that not get accomplished at the death, burial and resurrection? 

How can you be flesh and live in another dimension . . .(heaven).  If he is still flesh . .what's to stop us from going to heaven?  If he is still flesh, then why did he tell Peter that he's going to a place where they can't follow him?

It is not that He is just "still flesh" but "flesh and bones."
How can we be flesh and live in another dimmension? The Bible states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.15:50). It doesn't say: "flesh and bones cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "The soul is in the blood" Lev 17:11 "for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood."

So Jesus shed His blood and thus gave His soul. So now He is flesh and bones.

God is going to resurrect dead saints out of their graves. The graves must be opened for this to take place so that their bodies can come forth. The bodies of the saints who are alive when the graves are opened will be changed.

Why go to all that waste of energy and power to open up the graves if they are just going to be spirits in the resurrection?

Christ will come back as flesh and bones because He just will and humans in that future day will need a tangible representation of them to converse with.

Wow, I see some pretty finely split hairs in this post.

But I'm glad you posted it, because this is an excellent demonstration of literalism carried too far.

Though I'm glad you're UR, I'm a bit surprised at it based on your approach.

I'm glad you made some remarks about my post because they are an excellent demonstration of no help whatsoever to the debate at hand.

Well, I can certainly see why you wouldn't think it was any help. If you're going to sling comebacks, at least be more original than just turning what I've said around...

Honestly, Tony; your myopic literalism often doesn't allow you to see the end of your own nose in some areas, spiritually speaking (not to say that you don't have spiritual insights, because you do). You're making the same kinds of mistakes the Pharisees made (though not to the same ends, or for the same reasons), which was really my whole point about the letter vs. the spirit.
Am I challenging the authority of scripture? No. I do believe the written word does have value, but I definitely disagree with the way you go about interpreting it at times. Your whole approach to certain topics smacks of legalism.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, so perhaps it's best that we just agree to disagree.

[Tony N]

What amazes me doc is you make these statements concerning me and my understanding which absolutely prove nothing. So why even say them? You waste my time in stating that which not only does not add to the understanding of this thread but actually detracts from it.

Instead of making all these peripheral statements, why not tell me exactly where I am incorrect.

Here's a suggestion: How can you absolutely disprove the Bible that Jesus is not flesh and bone?

How can you absolutely disprove the Bible that Jesus did not shed His blood for the remission of sins.

How can you absolutely disprove the Bible that Jesus' flesh after He rose from the dead is different than before?

How can you absolutely disprove the Bible that God is not going to raise our bodies from the dead as He did His Son? as He will do Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the saints? (remember the valley of dry bones?)

If you can't answer I will understand.

I would suggest in the future you should read the story of Bambi which stated: "if you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all."