Catholicism and Hell... I'm so confused

[Molly]

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

A couple of things come to mind.

His wounds were not healing--he tells Thomas to feel his wounds.

He can walk through closed doors.

He looks different, such that people who know him don't recognize him.

But he says he is flesh and bones.

[Tony N]

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

A couple of things come to mind.

His wounds were not healing--he tells Thomas to feel his wounds.

He can walk through closed doors.

He looks different, such that people who know him don't recognize him.

But he says he is flesh and bones.

Molly, did Philip have different flesh and bones than we?

Act 8:36-40  Now as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch is averring, "Lo ! Water! What is preventing me from being baptized?  (37)  -  (38)  And he orders the chariot to stand, and they both descended into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptizes him."  (39)  Now when they stepped up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord snatches away Philip, and the eunuch did not perceive him any longer, for he went his way rejoicing."  (40)  Now Philip was found in Azotus, and, passing through, he brought the evangel to all the cities, till his coming into Caesarea."

No, he did not have a different flesh and neither did Jesus.

The reason Jesus' wounds did not heal?
If you had huge nail holes in your hands and feet, died, came back to life after three days and asked me to look at the holes in your hands and feet, would I be amazed if they weren't healed up yet?  Would I think you have different flesh? I would think it would be perfectly normal that they were still open wounds.

Why were Jesus' wounds not bleeding? He shed His blood in the cross.

[Doc]

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."

Well, I could turn those questions around and ask you the same thing. I'm not going to, because that wouldn't be profitable, because the point is not whether the bible actually says those things, but rather what the point of it saying those things is.  In other words, what it actually says means to convey. The point of it saying what it says is not so that we can make literal interpretive arguments out of those things and beat each other over the head with it; something that has little or no spiritual value. For some reason, you can't seem to see that.


And, as to your last comment I'd say; take your own advice. 

[Tony N]

Doc I already proved that Jesus was flesh and bones. Neither you nor Nathan have proven differently.

I already proved Jesus shed His blood.

You and Nathan denounce me as something less than a truly spiritual person because I believe the Scriptures. I know  some here say they believe the Scriptures but when someone tells me Jesus was not flesh and bones even after He said He said He has flesh and bones is pretty much an indicator of where one is in their maturity in their walk.

[Molly]

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

A couple of things come to mind.

His wounds were not healing--he tells Thomas to feel his wounds.

He can walk through closed doors.

He looks different, such that people who know him don't recognize him.

But he says he is flesh and bones.

Molly, did Philip have different flesh and bones than we?

Act 8:36-40  Now as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch is averring, "Lo ! Water! What is preventing me from being baptized?  (37)  -  (38)  And he orders the chariot to stand, and they both descended into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptizes him."  (39)  Now when they stepped up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord snatches away Philip, and the eunuch did not perceive him any longer, for he went his way rejoicing."  (40)  Now Philip was found in Azotus, and, passing through, he brought the evangel to all the cities, till his coming into Caesarea."

No, he did not have a different flesh and neither did Jesus.

The reason Jesus' wounds did not heal?
If you had huge nail holes in your hands and feet, died, came back to life after three days and asked me to look at the holes in your hands and feet, would I be amazed if they weren't healed up yet?  Would I think you have different flesh? I would think it would be perfectly normal that they were still open wounds.

Why were Jesus' wounds not bleeding? He shed His blood in the cross.

well, I don't want to pretend I understand what is going on here--I don't.  But it does interest me.  Because I know that I cannot disappear from one place and turn up another place miles away instantaneously.  So my flesh and blood cannot now do that.  So, yes, I would have to say there is something different between myself and Philip, at the moment

Question:  did the resurrected Christ have blood?  You say he shed it at the cross.  So was his new body without blood?

It wasn't three days later that he was appearing to them; he was around for 40 days after the resurrection.

Nor can I walk through walls and closed doors.  So something is different.

[reFORMer]

  Romans 6:8-9, (AV)...
"Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him."

An immortal "deathless" body is certainly not the same as our born from Adam flesh.

Acts 13:32-34, (AV)...
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Jesus, to be installed in the throne (cp., Ps 2:6) was born of resurrection, which is the day God says,  "My son art Thou!  I, today, have begotten Thee." (Psalm 2:7)  This statement from Psalm 2 is quoted again and again.  Here it is concerning His superiority to the very angels (cf., Heb 1:5), to whom Adamic man is inferior (cf., Ps 8:4-5).  There it is regarding His Melchizedek Priesthood superior to Aaron's (cp., Heb 5:5).  It is, "...because of His remaining into the eon, [he] has an inviolate priesthood" (Heb 7:24, AV), again something not from Adam.

Not only in resurrection, prior to ascension; but, now:

Ephesians 1:10-22, (CLV)...
19 and what the transcendent greatness of His power for us who are believing, in accord with the operation of the might of His strength,
20 which is operative in the Christ, rousing Him from among the dead and seating Him at His right hand among the celestials,
21 up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is impending:
22 and subjects all under His feet, and gives Him, as Head over all, to the ecclesia which is His body, the complement of the One completing the all in all.

While the body that died is the same body that was raised from the dead in the case of Jesus, a one to one correspondence, it is a transfigured body.  "It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body.  If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, "became a living soul:" the last Adam a vivifying Spirit. (1 Co 15:44-45, CLV)  Jesus took Adamic humanity, its world, and all of it that God blessed into the grave and left it there.  He raised from the dead and ascended into whatever is the Father's, from whence He is sent as Spirit into our hearts, as "making alive spirit" (vs. 45) for us to know Him, or rather be, "...known by Him" (1 Co 8:3) because we love Him.


your brother, James Rohde

[Tony N]

Hi James! Thanks for the nice study.

When some people read: "spiritual body" they immediately think "spirit body." But this is not the case. Of course you may already know this so this might be for other readers.

We are now have a "soulish body." Does this mean we are literally "souls" without a body? No.

We will have a "spiritual body." Does this mean we will literally be "spirits" without a body?
No.

The difference between the body we have now and the body we will have in the future is that rather than our body being controlled by soulish appetites it will be controlled by spiritual appetites (if there is such a thing as spiritual appetites.) I just can't think of a word that is better than "appetites" at the moment. 

In the future God will make it so our bodies will no longer need food for it is written:

"Foods for the bowels and the bowels for foods, yet God will be discarding these as well as those . . . " (1Co 6:13).

So it seems God is going to discard our bowels which are needed for the assimilation of nutrients from food. Since we will no longer need food we will no longer need bowels.

[Tony N]

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

A couple of things come to mind.

His wounds were not healing--he tells Thomas to feel his wounds.

He can walk through closed doors.

He looks different, such that people who know him don't recognize him.

But he says he is flesh and bones.

Molly, did Philip have different flesh and bones than we?

Act 8:36-40  Now as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch is averring, "Lo ! Water! What is preventing me from being baptized?  (37)  -  (38)  And he orders the chariot to stand, and they both descended into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptizes him."  (39)  Now when they stepped up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord snatches away Philip, and the eunuch did not perceive him any longer, for he went his way rejoicing."  (40)  Now Philip was found in Azotus, and, passing through, he brought the evangel to all the cities, till his coming into Caesarea."

No, he did not have a different flesh and neither did Jesus.

The reason Jesus' wounds did not heal?
If you had huge nail holes in your hands and feet, died, came back to life after three days and asked me to look at the holes in your hands and feet, would I be amazed if they weren't healed up yet?  Would I think you have different flesh? I would think it would be perfectly normal that they were still open wounds.

Why were Jesus' wounds not bleeding? He shed His blood in the cross.

well, I don't want to pretend I understand what is going on here--I don't.  But it does interest me.  Because I know that I cannot disappear from one place and turn up another place miles away instantaneously.  So my flesh and blood cannot now do that.  So, yes, I would have to say there is something different between myself and Philip, at the moment

Question:  did the resurrected Christ have blood?  You say he shed it at the cross.  So was his new body without blood?

It wasn't three days later that he was appearing to them; he was around for 40 days after the resurrection.

Nor can I walk through walls and closed doors.  So something is different.

I don't think Jesus had blood after the resurrection because, well, He had a gaping hole in his side and gaping holes in his hands and feet.

Does it specifically say He walked through walls and closed doors?

Joh 20:26 And after eight days His disciples were again within, and Thomas was with them. The doors having been locked, Jesus is coming and stood in the midst and said, "Peace to you!"

It doesn't say Jesus walked through the door or walked through the wall.

Jesus met Mary M. the morning of His resurrection.

Remember like Philip, when the holy spirit controls a person that that person can disappear from view and be in another city just like that.

[Nathan]

Let's try this again . . .
How is it that Jesus still had scars in his hands . . .but yet there is no indication that the rest of his body . .which took such a beating that he was beyond recognition . .that cat of nine tails removed skin, muscle, tendons . . .he couldn't carry his cross because he was beaten so badly . .the crown of thorns on his head . .embedded in his scalp and skull . . .yet it was only his hands and his side that left a scar . . .and your idea of why you think he wasn't bleeding was because he ran all his blood out . . .

Come on Tony . . . you're trying to tell me that he was still all flesh . .but denying the laws of flesh . . .life is in the blood . .yet you're trying to say that he walked around without blood in his body . .which is to say he waked with no life in him . . .this is why your rendition is so frustrating . . .it seems that you're explanations are all to support you rather than to realize it's not about you, me or anyone else's interpretation . .but that there is something much more profound here than what we're arguing about on the surface.

Jesus took a severed ear . . picked it up off out of the dirt . . .held it to the man's head and healed it.  No bleeding, no scarring . . .a woman bleeding for 18 years . . .touched him and the bleeding stopped . . .look at all those others that were healed INSTANTLY . .but now you're trying to say that the Son of God, because he was still flesh . .after the resurrection . . . could not defy the laws of the flesh by not being completly healed himself?

Too many holes in there . .you've got a theory, with no explanation as to why. I agree, he was all flesh before the resurrection . .but he was not after the resurrection . . . you embrace the one place where he said he was not a vision or ghost . . .but that he had a body and he ate fish . . .I get all of that . . . but to say that he still is that now . . .you've got no proof.  And you've never explained how you can be in the flesh and yet live in the spirit realm . .invisible.

Nor have you explained why you believe that natural has dominance over spiritual . . .which is what you are basically doing.  You are claiming that Jesus is still in the flesh . . .but you can't "be" flesh without being visible.  If you are "invisible" then your body is not the same flesh.  And that's my whole point.  Jesus body was unrecognizable after his resurrection.  But it was by his control.  When revelation came to the observer that he was Jesus, when their spirit saw his true identity, he would disappear physically . . .that's telling me that natural does NOT have dominance over spiritual.  As soon as the physical was dealt with, Jesus would return back to the spiritual . . .

Which brings up another point.  Jesus prayer to the Father where he speaks about being one with God and how he left his position to become flesh . .and that he was looking forward TO RETURNING to the Father after his purpose on earth (realm of the natural things) was complete. 

One last thing that I find is very classic "Tony". . .
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?

No where in this discussion has Doc, or myself ever said these things are not true.  Nobody said Jesus was not flesh and bone.  Nobody said Jesus did not shed his blood.  Nobody said that there isn't a resurrection . . .you're twisting everything into a muddy mess.  What "I" am saying . . .I'll let Doc share his own heart on this . .but what "I" am saying is that the resurrected body of Jesus was not the same body that they removed from the cross in the sense that his resurrected body only retained scars in his hands, feet and side from the penetraiting acts of sin  . . . meaning the nails and spear that pierced him were due to him giving himself as a sin sacrifice . . .but I believe that just as he had the power to resurrect from the dead . .he also had the power to "not" have the scars . .but they remained ON PURPOSE as evidence to the unbelievers . .such as Thomas . .that he was who he said he was.

Ever wonder how it was that the disciples that walked with him but didn't recognize him until he broke bread with him . .there was no mention of visual proof to them . .no scars . .but only to Thomas . .. For me, that's saying that Jesus not only died for the believing (spiritual recognition at the breaking of bread) but also for the unbelieving as well.  The scars were there not because he didn't have enough time to physcially heal, but Jesus chose to let them remain as a witness.

There's just no benefit in embracing the natural logic of a physical manifestation.  Not only that . .but it just misses the entire purpose of why Jesus did what he did.  I'm sure you're going to disagree with that . .you have to . .because for you to agree with me, would mean you have to admit that everything Jesus did had/has a spiritual purpose . . .and you can't seem to bring yourself to believe that.

Bottom line . . .if Jesus could physically heal a detatched ear of flesh . .he could also have had healed hands and feet .  .easily.  Ya, he said he was flesh and bones . . . he ate, you could touch him . . .but he also disappeared into thin air . . .flesh doesn't disappear . . .not in our current state anyway.

Why is it such a bad thing to believe that he's a spirit in the first place?  The flesh is a lower life form than the spirit . . .so why would anyone want to conform the Spirit of God into a body of flesh to begin with?

[Cardinal]

  Yes He allowed the marks to show. The marks on His hands were to show those "possessing" the 5 fold that they could lay it down and allow a type of death to come to it, just as Gideon laid both the cake (good) and the goat (evil) down on the altar for the fire to consume it. He has brought all of us outside the camp to die, for this reason, because the ministry that's coming is not in part, but only those that will lay down their crowns at His feet, will qualify. Blessings...

[claypot]

It is interesting to see the concept of 'satan' work even here on this board. The thoughts and words of some are very adversarial to the thoughts and words of others and yet I see so much good coming from it all.

Is this God or what?

Even the ignorance, willfull or unknowingly, is bringing light out of darkness.

Keep it up Brothers and Sisters. See the face of God in Jesus and keep writing.

cp

[Tony N]

Let's try this again . . .
How is it that Jesus still had scars in his hands . . .but yet there is no indication that the rest of his body . .which took such a beating that he was beyond recognition . .that cat of nine tails removed skin, muscle, tendons . . .he couldn't carry his cross because he was beaten so badly . .the crown of thorns on his head . .embedded in his scalp and skull . . .yet it was only his hands and his side that left a scar . . .and your idea of why you think he wasn't bleeding was because he ran all his blood out . . .

The two on the road to Emmaus could not recognize Him and neither did Mary M. in the garden. So His face must have been disfigured by the beatings and thorns etc.
The Bible does not say that only His hands and side had gaping wounds. You say "scar." The Bible says Thomas could have put his hand into Jesus' side. If He had blood, don't you think it would be pumping out of his side especially when the spear punctured His heart?

Come on Tony . . . you're trying to tell me that he was still all flesh . .but denying the laws of flesh . . .life is in the blood . .yet you're trying to say that he walked around without blood in his body . .which is to say he waked with no life in him . . .this is why your rendition is so frustrating . . .it seems that you're explanations are all to support you rather than to realize it's not about you, me or anyone else's interpretation . .but that there is something much more profound here than what we're arguing about on the surface.

The Bible says "the soul is in the blood." Of course He walked around without blood in His body. He now got His energy to live 100% via spirit. He is not a spirit. He is a flesh and bones being. Notice the Bible always says "flesh and blood" but after Christ arose from the dead He was the first to say He was flesh and bones.

Jesus took a severed ear . . picked it up off out of the dirt . . .held it to the man's head and healed it.  No bleeding, no scarring . . .a woman bleeding for 18 years . . .touched him and the bleeding stopped . . .look at all those others that were healed INSTANTLY . .but now you're trying to say that the Son of God, because he was still flesh . .after the resurrection . . . could not defy the laws of the flesh by not being completly healed himself?

God raised Him from the dead without blood.

Too many holes in there . .you've got a theory, with no explanation as to why. I agree, he was all flesh before the resurrection . .but he was not after the resurrection . . . you embrace the one place where he said he was not a vision or ghost . . .but that he had a body and he ate fish . . .I get all of that . . . but to say that he still is that now . . .you've got no proof.  And you've never explained how you can be in the flesh and yet live in the spirit realm . .invisible.

You say I have no explanation as to why. But I told you why He doesn't have blood. He shed His blood on the cross. Do you know what "shed His blood" means?  Of course I have proof He is still flesh and bones. He said he was.
Since blood carries oxygen to the body to keep it alive, and since Jesus shed His blood and afterward is flesh and bones, how can Christ ascend above the earth where there is no oxygen? The answer is spirit. He is now empowered solely by spirit rather than blood. So will be be empowered when we arise into the emperion.

Nor have you explained why you believe that natural has dominance over spiritual . . .which is what you are basically doing.  You are claiming that Jesus is still in the flesh . . .but you can't "be" flesh without being visible.  If you are "invisible" then your body is not the same flesh.  And that's my whole point.  Jesus body was unrecognizable after his resurrection.  But it was by his control.  When revelation came to the observer that he was Jesus, when their spirit saw his true identity, he would disappear physically . . .that's telling me that natural does NOT have dominance over spiritual.  As soon as the physical was dealt with, Jesus would return back to the spiritual . . .

I never said the natural has dominance over spiritual. I actually said just the opposite. First the SOULISH then the SPIRITUAL.  Soulish Adam still had a body and Spiritual Christ still has a body. But the spiritual aspect of Christ dominates the flesh He has. The soulish aspect of Adam dominated his flesh.

Which brings up another point.  Jesus prayer to the Father where he speaks about being one with God and how he left his position to become flesh . .and that he was looking forward TO RETURNING to the Father after his purpose on earth (realm of the natural things) was complete.

 

And that He did.

One last thing that I find is very classic "Tony". . .

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?

No where in this discussion has Doc, or myself ever said these things are not true.  Nobody said Jesus was not flesh and bone.  Nobody said Jesus did not shed his blood.  Nobody said that there isn't a resurrection . . .you're twisting everything into a muddy mess.  What "I" am saying . . .I'll let Doc share his own heart on this . .but what "I" am saying is that the resurrected body of Jesus was not the same body that they removed from the cross in the sense that his resurrected body only retained scars in his hands, feet and side from the penetraiting acts of sin  . . . meaning the nails and spear that pierced him were due to him giving himself as a sin sacrifice . . .but I believe that just as he had the power to resurrect from the dead . .he also had the power to "not" have the scars . .but they remained ON PURPOSE as evidence to the unbelievers . .such as Thomas . .that he was who he said he was.

I wouldn't call a gaping hole in the side of Christ a scar. By the way, you did not prove that Jesus' post-resurrection flesh is different from his pre-resurrection flesh. Just saying so is not proving so. Also, that is only conjecture on your part as to why there are still holes in His hands and side. The Bible doesn't really say why they weren't healed. You might be right, But maybe wrong too.

Ever wonder how it was that the disciples that walked with him but didn't recognize him until he broke bread with him . .there was no mention of visual proof to them . .no scars . .but only to Thomas . .. For me, that's saying that Jesus not only died for the believing (spiritual recognition at the breaking of bread) but also for the unbelieving as well.  The scars were there not because he didn't have enough time to physcially heal, but Jesus chose to let them remain as a witness.

Maybe the Romans beat the crap out of Him so badly that He was still unreckognizable to the disciples.
You are incorrect that He showed His holes only to Thomas. In Luke's account the two travelling to Emmaus ate with Him. It was only after He broke bread they recognized Him. Then later He appeared to His disciples and told them to to look at his hands and feet and they believed. Read Luke 24 if you don't believe me.

There's just no benefit in embracing the natural logic of a physical manifestation.  Not only that . .but it just misses the entire purpose of why Jesus did what he did.  I'm sure you're going to disagree with that . .you have to . .because for you to agree with me, would mean you have to admit that everything Jesus did had/has a spiritual purpose . . .and you can't seem to bring yourself to believe that.

Of course there is benefit in embracing the truth that Christ is flesh and bones, especially when it is true. And you are also incorrect as to why I can't agree with you on this. You see, Nathan, I believe that everything Jesus did had/has a spiritual purpose. But you just can't bring yourself to believe me.

Bottom line . . .if Jesus could physically heal a detatched ear of flesh . .he could also have had healed hands and feet .  .easily.  Ya, he said he was flesh and bones . . . he ate, you could touch him . . .but he also disappeared into thin air . . .flesh doesn't disappear . . .not in our current state anyway.

Not in our current state. I agree. But a flesh and bones body 100% actuated by spirit is another matter. How do you think God is going to raise out bodies out of the graves and then ascend into the oxygenless space above the earth? Spirit.

Why is it such a bad thing to believe that he's a spirit in the first place?  The flesh is a lower life form than the spirit . . .so why would anyone want to conform the Spirit of God into a body of flesh to begin with?

It is bad to believe He is a spirit because He said He is not a spirit. He said He is flesh and bones. If you can't wrap your mind around that fact and make it jive with your ideas does not mean it is incorrect.

[Nathan]

Egad . . . . This is my last go around with this . . . you and I are getting no where and the only reason I've written this much is for the benefit of others . . which I presume is mainly why you write most of your stuff as well.  I'm going into this with the FOX News slogan . . ."We report, you decide . . "  Let the readers give what's been written here over to the spirit and let the spirit reveal to them what is true. 

I must say, never in all the years I've been in the church have I ever heard anyone bound by such a literalist point of view.  To imagine that Jesus stumbled around in a mass of mangled flesh that was so badly torn up and beaten to a literal pulp and still expected people to receive life from him . . . funny thing about your scenerio . . . you actually think people didn't recognize him due to the fact . . .sorry. . .I can't even say this without a chuckle . . .but you think that the reason why they didn't acknowledge him was because he was STILL in the SAME state he was in on the cross.

I just can't imagine anyone trying to sell this theory of yours.  Perhaps you missed your calling . . . you should be in sales.  If you can sell this . . you can sell ANYTHING. 

I'm sorry if I sound beligerent . . .but this is difficult for me to keep my composure.  I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your message is so brash that it's very distracting for me to stay on point.

But what I was trying to say was . . .funny how after the resurrection, with Jesus being in the disfigured state you seem to think he was in . . .that no one attempted to help him . . . to anoint him with healing ointment, to put salve on his wounds.  No one was even concerned at all about his apperance. And "if" he was still in that state . .why then would he still offer to show his hands and his sides?  Could they not tell by the rest of his beaten body that he just crawled out of a grave?

Okay, just a couple comments to your remarks and I'm done with this one.

I never said the natural has dominance over spiritual. I actually said just the opposite. First the SOULISH then the SPIRITUAL.  Soulish Adam still had a body and Spiritual Christ still has a body. But the spiritual aspect of Christ dominates the flesh He has. The soulish aspect of Adam dominated his flesh.

You're twisting my words again.  I never said "you SAY natural is dominant over spiritual"  I said your point of view is essentially telling us that physical is dominant.  Your entire platform is built in taking every thing literally . .without question.  This whole argument around Jesus literal flesh is just one example of that.  But you claim you take things spiritually, but every explanation you give on every topic, is always based on the natural.  Just because the subject is about God, does not make the conversation a spiritual one.

Walking in the spirit for me, is reacting to what is heard inside my heart, not to what is seen and acknowledged by my mind.  I "can" walk in the spirit while still being in this body of flesh.  I "can" allow my spirit to be dominant over my flesh.  I believe Jesus did that "before" the resurrection. 

I personally believe that the reason why they didn't recognize him after the resurrection was not because he was unrecognizable . .but because they weren't looking "for" him.  They weren't looking for a resurrected Jesus, they were still seeing him from a fallen state of death.  He didn't wink at them and then they got it.  He connected with them "internally".  When he called out "Mary" . . . it was the recognition of the spirit within her that realized the sound of his voice.  It wasn't her mind recognizing his voice . . .if it were, she would have realized right off he was not the garden keeper . .because he spoke with her "before" he said "Mary".  But it's the spiritual intimacy we've talked about before that she finally connected with. 

And in case it's not been clear to you to now . . . in no way, shape or form do I think that Jesus was still in his mortified state . .the walking dead so to speak.  I believe the resurrected Savior over came death, decay, everything connected to the beatings and shame he took on on the cross . . they were finished . . he left them there . . .the ravaged body was no longer.  He walked in a transformed body . . .some things we'll not fully understand while still in these bodies of flesh, I'll say that much.  But I'm fully confident that the ravaged body they took down from the cross . .was NOT in the same form when he stepped out of that tomb.


You see, Nathan, I believe that everything Jesus did had/has a spiritual purpose. But you just can't bring yourself to believe me.

I don't for one minute believe this one either.  All you ever emphasize is the natural . . . very seldom do you ever explain the spiritual purpose behind the physical act. 

I lay this argument to rest.  I'll give you the last word if you so choose.  But at this point, I see no more benefit to drag this out with you any further.

Blessings.

[pneuma]

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.

Hi Nathan, I can only summerize that although you started your post above in address to me you then went on to address someone else, most likely Tony, as I have yet to say much on this or any topic of late.

Its not really a problem brother, but it does make it look as though I beleive things I don't or said things I have not to other readers.

[Tony N]

I'll let Jesus have the last word with you, Nathan:

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. (Luke 24:39)

[claypot]

I'll let Jesus have the last word with you, Nathan:

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. (Luke 24:39)

And then He walked through a physical literal solid wall.

cp

[pneuma]

Hi Nathan, I know you said this subject is closed for you now (at least with Tony) but I hope not with others. If so just ignore this post.

You agree with me that NOT all flesh is the same flesh and this is good imo.

But there is still a difference in the way we are viewing that statement.

You made these two replies (below) to Tony (I think as they were in the post that started with me).

I agree, he was all flesh before the resurrection . .but he was not after the resurrection

but what "I" am saying is that the resurrected body of Jesus was not the same body that they removed from the cross in the sense that his resurrected body only retained scars in his hands, feet and side from the penetraiting acts of sin

The flesh and blood/bones Jesus had while He walked this earth is the exact same flesh and blood/bones Jesus has in His resurrected state. Although in His resurrected state, His body is now glorified.


People seem to think there is something wrong or sinful with our literal flesh and blood, but there is NOT. Our literal flesh and blood does not make us sin or sinful it the life we live that makes us sinful and corrupts our literal flesh and blood.

When Paul said flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God he was NOT talking about our literal flesh and blood

 1 Corinthians 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

He was talking about the life that we LIVE in the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God for the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Leviticus 17:11
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Our life in the flesh is not the same as Jesus' life in the flesh, for His life was hid in God, He partook of Gods FLESH AND BLOOD which is only really saying He partook of Gods LIFE.

When flesh and blood are spoken of in scripture it always speaks of the LIFE we partake of and has absolutely NOTHING to do with our literal flesh and blood.

And Jesus makes this plain at least to me when He said:

John 6:53-54
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Surely no one thinks we are to literally eat and drink Jesus flesh and blood. While maybe Tony

Just something to think about brother, but like Paul said he was waiting for the redemption of his body I to believe that my whole spirit, soul and body or the whole of me will be redeemed.
God bless
 

[pneuma]

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

Tony that only go's to show that you did NOT understand my post for if you did then you would have understood that I beleive Jesus does have flesh and blood/bone. So tell me how this make the word of God of none effect?

On this point I was actually agreeing with you brother; although I still don't think you understand why as you are just way to literal

read my last reply to Nathan, maybe it will help, maybe not, tis in Gods hands.

[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.

Hi Nathan, I can only summerize that although you started your post above in address to me you then went on to address someone else, most likely Tony, as I have yet to say much on this or any topic of late.

Its not really a problem brother, but it does make it look as though I beleive things I don't or said things I have not to other readers.

You are exactly right bro . . .sorry, I didn't mean to make that sound like you were saying things you didn't say.  What actually happened with that was you posted while I was writing and I read your post . .tacked that piece on the very beginning in responding to yours, and left the rest as it was.  Sorry about the confusion.

[pneuma]

You are exactly right bro . . .sorry, I didn't mean to make that sound like you were saying things you didn't say.  What actually happened with that was you posted while I was writing and I read your post . .tacked that piece on the very beginning in responding to yours, and left the rest as it was.  Sorry about the confusion.

no problem bro

[Nathan]

Hi Nathan, I know you said this subject is closed for you now (at least with Tony) but I hope not with others. If so just ignore this post.

You agree with me that NOT all flesh is the same flesh and this is good imo.

But there is still a difference in the way we are viewing that statement.

You made these two replies (below) to Tony (I think as they were in the post that started with me).

I agree, he was all flesh before the resurrection . .but he was not after the resurrection

but what "I" am saying is that the resurrected body of Jesus was not the same body that they removed from the cross in the sense that his resurrected body only retained scars in his hands, feet and side from the penetraiting acts of sin

The flesh and blood/bones Jesus had while He walked this earth is the exact same flesh and blood/bones Jesus has in His resurrected state. Although in His resurrected state, His body is now glorified.


People seem to think there is something wrong or sinful with our literal flesh and blood, but there is NOT. Our literal flesh and blood does not make us sin or sinful it the life we live that makes us sinful and corrupts our literal flesh and blood.

When Paul said flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God he was NOT talking about our literal flesh and blood

 1 Corinthians 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

He was talking about the life that we LIVE in the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God for the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Leviticus 17:11
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Our life in the flesh is not the same as Jesus' life in the flesh, for His life was hid in God, He partook of Gods FLESH AND BLOOD which is only really saying He partook of Gods LIFE.

When flesh and blood are spoken of in scripture it always speaks of the LIFE we partake of and has absolutely NOTHING to do with our literal flesh and blood.

And Jesus makes this plain at least to me when He said:

John 6:53-54
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Surely no one thinks we are to literally eat and drink Jesus flesh and blood. While maybe Tony

Just something to think about brother, but like Paul said he was waiting for the redemption of his body I to believe that my whole spirit, soul and body or the whole of me will be redeemed.
God bless
 

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

For me, it's not what condition his body was in as much as it was the spiritual revelation he brought to those having trouble recognizing him.

[Nathan]

I'll let Jesus have the last word with you, Nathan:

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. (Luke 24:39)

And then He walked through a physical literal solid wall.

cp

 

[WhiteWings]

When Paul said flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God he was NOT talking about our literal flesh and blood

 1 Corinthians 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

He was talking about the life that we LIVE in the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God for the life of the flesh is in the blood.

(According to some) flesh and blood meand the books/laws/ways of mankind.
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that the ways of man cannot inherit the kingdom of God;neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

[Molly]

Leviticus 17:11
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

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."

I don't know who made that second quote because I took it from an unidentified quote, but I looked up the word for 'life' and it is, indeed,  the same word used for 'soul.'

"life" [of the flesh is in the blood]

H5315
נפשׁ
nephesh
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.


The soul of the flesh is in the blood.   Ok, now bear with me, here.  Why is the blood of Jesus so precious?  Is it because it contains his soul/life?  So if we are covered by his blood are we covered by his soul?  Does his soul replace/become knit with our soul?  Is that the atonement? the reconciliation?  At-one-ment.  Did Jesus literally give his soul for us?


1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

[Taffy]

You are exactly right bro . . .sorry, I didn't mean to make that sound like you were saying things you didn't say.  What actually happened with that was you posted while I was writing and I read your post . .tacked that piece on the very beginning in responding to yours, and left the rest as it was.  Sorry about the confusion.

no problem bro

Now Scott....MOD HAT ON!!!!

Great to see ya back a bit matey, thanks for ya email..BUT..thems flowers be MINE....I just read ya post and thought it was ME     rolf!