Tentmaker Forum

Due to piecemeal research, I've come across the following:

In the first six schools of Christian theology, ET was only taught in the one in Rome.
So, ET is basically an RC invention.

However, then I heard that John Paul II said you don't have to believe in the RC church or even Jesus Christ to be saved. You're saved by adhering to the Beatitudes.

Then recently my pastor who was raised a Catholic, reminisced about how priests would tell him everyone will eventually get to heaven (quoted in a sarcastic tone).
Before that I heard him saying in the same tone how he'd hear, you better keep up with your confessions or you might die with an un-confessed mortal sin (which I took as meaning having to maintain salvation)

So, I'm wondering off hand, what's the deal?

Also, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

 :cloud9: yes, it was.....

I don't know if purgatory was taught by BC Jews but let me say this about the big purge.

The reason I have a hard time believing in it is it is supposed to make a person acceptable to God, or get one out of the middle part between heaven and hell to get you into heaven after you have your sins purged out of you.

But this really denies the finished work of Christ's obedience to the cross and being the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.

Purgatory lessens the real outcome of Christ's victory in Romans 5:18,19 for all mankind.

Now I am not saying that we can do whatever we want and sin all we want and there is no discipline for such a life. There surely is. But I believe this discipline happens in this life so we are not condemned in the future with the world:

1Co 11:32 Yet, being judged, we are being disciplined by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world."

Christ died for our sins. He did not die to keep manking from very needful loving correction. But purgatory? No, I don't think so.

Quote from: tonyThe reason I have a hard time believing in it is it is supposed to make a person acceptable to God, or get one out of the middle part between heaven and hell to get you into heaven after you have your sins purged out of you.

But this really denies the finished work of Christ's obedience to the cross and being the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.

Christ came to baptize with purging fire.  His work is still underway.   Afterall, He came to destroy sin and death, but we all know that sin and death are still around.

Brian

QuoteAlso, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

Please quote that verse.

Quote from: Tony N on February 07, 2009, 01:39:23 AM
The reason I have a hard time believing in it is it is supposed to make a person acceptable to God, or get one out of the middle part between heaven and hell to get you into heaven after you have your sins purged out of you.

But this really denies the finished work of Christ's obedience to the cross and being the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world..

It doesn't and is in line with UR, as I see it.

QuotePurgatory lessens the real outcome of Christ's victory in Romans 5:18,19 for all mankind.

Not imo

QuoteNow I am not saying that we can do whatever we want and sin all we want and there is no discipline for such a life. There surely is.

Does that lessen Christ's victory? Same answer for purgatory.

QuoteChrist died for our sins. He did not die to keep manking from very needful loving correction. But purgatory? No, I don't think so.

For me RC looks like it has mixed ET with a little UR.
The hell part is pure pagan. (eternal and real fire)
Now replace the real fire in the purgatory with a spiritual fire. Sounds a bit like God being a refinery and fullers soap.
And then it suddenly isn't very unlike a UR correction....?

Just a thought.

Catholics believe Purgatory is a place just above Hell and is a place for the departed souls who did not commit really bad sins (mortal sins) but committed venial sins.

These poor souls can get prayed out of Purgatory by the prayers of the saints or by special Mass. Of course the mass costs money so you have to cough up enough money if you want your soul friend get a pass out of Purgatory a little earlier. Of course no one really knows when they get out so you could keep giving loads of money to the RCC to have more and more masses given for your poor departed loved one thinking he/she is still "down there." I know, I used to be Catholic.

Also, when people are physically dead, they are d-e-a-d. The bible says the dead know nothing.

Ecc 9:10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your vigor, For there is no doing or devising or knowledge or wisdom In the unseen where you are going."

So how can these dead people learn anything while in this mythical place called Purgatory? They can't.

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die, But the dead know nothing whatsoever;
There is no further hire for them; Indeed remembrance of them is forgotten."

 "Another remarkable phenomena is worth noting in this
connection. It is the tendency for those who deal much with the
original to become "heretics" on this question. The church has
corrupted the truth so that a vital contact with the very original
is sure to lead to "heresy." In truth such a study of the original
has become almost necessary in order to recover this truth. Thus
it was with Martin Luther, soon after his escape from the
thralldom of Rome. In his "Defense" he says: "I permit the Pope to
make articles of faith for himself and his faithful: such as that
the soul is the substantial form of the human body, that the soul
is {immortal}, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in
the Roman dunghill of decretals."

     "But even before his day our own martyr whose life and death
were devoted to truth, writes to Sir Thomas Moore: "In putting
departed souls in heaven, hell and purgatory, you destroy the
arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection. What
God doth with them, that shall we know when we come to them. The
true faith putteth the resurrection, which we be warned to look
for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put
that souls did ever live. And the Pope

p36                                 Tyndale and Luther's Testimony

joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ, and the fleshly doctrine
of philosophers together--things so contrary that they cannot
agree. And because the fleshly-minded Pope, consenteth unto
heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the Scriptures to
establish it. If the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not
in good case as the angels be and then what cause of the
resurrection?" (Unsearchable Riches, vol.6 pp.35,36)

 :cloud9: One problem with that.....

Mathew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

:cloud9: Did they come down from heaven so they could be in their bodies to resurrect?
David said the Lord would not suffer his soul to STAY in "hell".

And if you're going to say heaven wasn't "open" until Jesus died, then God is a respecter of persons, because Elijah and Moses were seen in glory with Him, after Elijah was seen going up in the whirlwind, which was the Spirit of Christ that caught him up. And then there's Enoch, who walked with God and was no more.

I could go a lot deeper here, but suffice it to say, the Jews believed in a type of "purgatory" for a good reason. Blessings....

Quote from: Cardinal on February 07, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
:cloud9: One problem with that.....

QuoteMathew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

:cloud9: Did they come down from heaven so they could be in their bodies to resurrect?
David said the Lord would not suffer his soul to STAY in "hell".

Dear Cardinal, this is what David said:
Psa 16:10 For You shall not forsake my soul in the unseen; You shall not allow Your benign one to see corruption.
Though David said that, it was actually referring to Christ:

Act 2:27 For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen, Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay."

because Peter said that David's tomb was still with them in Acts 2:29. So David was acquainted with decay but Christ was not. So the decaying of the soul has to do with the whole person in this instance.

No, no one was in heaven and came down to re-inhabit their bodies. The Bible clearly states:

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

QuoteAnd if you're going to say heaven wasn't "open" until Jesus died, then God is a respecter of persons, because Elijah and Moses were seen in glory with Him, after Elijah was seen going up in the whirlwind, which was the Spirit of Christ that caught him up. And then there's Enoch, who walked with God and was no more.

Dear Cardinal, when they saw Moses and Elijah and Jesus, it was a vision they all saw:
Mat 17:9 And, at their descending out of the mountain, Jesus directs them, saying, "Now you may tell no one of the vision till the Son of Mankind may be roused from among the dead."

Here is an excellent article on Enoch and Elijah
http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GeneralExpositions/EnochAndElijah.html (http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GeneralExpositions/EnochAndElijah.html)

QuoteI could go a lot deeper here, but suffice it to say, the Jews believed in a type of "purgatory" for a good reason. Blessings....

And maybe "they by their traditions made the word of God of none effect.

this reminds me of why there's no Catholics in my galaxy.  :laughing7:

 :cloud9: Tony, I've been gone all day, but I will eventually get back to you..... :happy3:

Quote from: Tony N on February 07, 2009, 04:46:01 PM

Quote from: Cardinal on February 07, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
:cloud9: One problem with that.....

QuoteMathew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

:cloud9: Did they come down from heaven so they could be in their bodies to resurrect?
David said the Lord would not suffer his soul to STAY in "hell".

Dear Cardinal, this is what David said:
Psa 16:10 For You shall not forsake my soul in the unseen; You shall not allow Your benign one to see corruption.
Though David said that, it was actually referring to Christ:

Act 2:27 For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen, Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay."

because Peter said that David's tomb was still with them in Acts 2:29. So David was acquainted with decay but Christ was not. So the decaying of the soul has to do with the whole person in this instance.

No, no one was in heaven and came down to re-inhabit their bodies. The Bible clearly states:

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

QuoteAnd if you're going to say heaven wasn't "open" until Jesus died, then God is a respecter of persons, because Elijah and Moses were seen in glory with Him, after Elijah was seen going up in the whirlwind, which was the Spirit of Christ that caught him up. And then there's Enoch, who walked with God and was no more.

Dear Cardinal, when they saw Moses and Elijah and Jesus, it was a vision they all saw:
Mat 17:9 And, at their descending out of the mountain, Jesus directs them, saying, "Now you may tell no one of the vision till the Son of Mankind may be roused from among the dead."

Here is an excellent article on Enoch and Elijah
http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GeneralExpositions/EnochAndElijah.html (http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GeneralExpositions/EnochAndElijah.html)

QuoteI could go a lot deeper here, but suffice it to say, the Jews believed in a type of "purgatory" for a good reason. Blessings....

And maybe "they by their traditions made the word of God of none effect.

I'm still not buying the vision aspect of this . . . at least not from the  standpoint that it didn't happen at all . .it was just their imaginations . . . I disagree.  I believe it did happen . .it was a vision because what they saw was not in their realm, but in the spirit realm . .so that would make it a vision . . .but no one has tried to explain "why" Jesus had them see the goings on in the first place . .what was the purpose of that?  Why Moses?  Why Elijah?  Where was Abraham?  He was the one the original covenant was made with . . .Why not David?  Beings that there were several refrences of Jesus being in the line of David?

Quote from: Nathan on February 08, 2009, 03:29:25 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 07, 2009, 04:46:01 PM

Quote from: Cardinal on February 07, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
:cloud9: One problem with that.....

QuoteMathew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

:cloud9: Did they come down from heaven so they could be in their bodies to resurrect?
David said the Lord would not suffer his soul to STAY in "hell".

Dear Cardinal, this is what David said:
Psa 16:10 For You shall not forsake my soul in the unseen; You shall not allow Your benign one to see corruption.
Though David said that, it was actually referring to Christ:

Act 2:27 For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen, Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay."

because Peter said that David's tomb was still with them in Acts 2:29. So David was acquainted with decay but Christ was not. So the decaying of the soul has to do with the whole person in this instance.

No, no one was in heaven and came down to re-inhabit their bodies. The Bible clearly states:

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

QuoteAnd if you're going to say heaven wasn't "open" until Jesus died, then God is a respecter of persons, because Elijah and Moses were seen in glory with Him, after Elijah was seen going up in the whirlwind, which was the Spirit of Christ that caught him up. And then there's Enoch, who walked with God and was no more.

Dear Cardinal, when they saw Moses and Elijah and Jesus, it was a vision they all saw:
Mat 17:9 And, at their descending out of the mountain, Jesus directs them, saying, "Now you may tell no one of the vision till the Son of Mankind may be roused from among the dead."

Here is an excellent article on Enoch and Elijah
http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GeneralExpositions/EnochAndElijah.html (http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GeneralExpositions/EnochAndElijah.html)

QuoteI could go a lot deeper here, but suffice it to say, the Jews believed in a type of "purgatory" for a good reason. Blessings....

And maybe "they by their traditions made the word of God of none effect.

I'm still not buying the vision aspect of this . . . at least not from the  standpoint that it didn't happen at all . .it was just their imaginations . . . I disagree.  I believe it did happen . .it was a vision because what they saw was not in their realm, but in the spirit realm . .so that would make it a vision . . .but no one has tried to explain "why" Jesus had them see the goings on in the first place . .what was the purpose of that?  Why Moses?  Why Elijah?  Where was Abraham?  He was the one the original covenant was made with . . .Why not David?  Beings that there were several refrences of Jesus being in the line of David?

I find it interesting that Moses (the law), and Elijah (the prophets), were present during the "Transfiguration."
Subsequently, they were laid to rest.

"Like a caterpillar that is transformed into a butterfly; we are risen from the dead."

peacemaker

 :cloud9: Don't have time for a long post right now, but it was Moses and Elijah because it was given to them to sit on His right hand and on His left, by the Father. And it was a picture of Passover; the Lamb, the bread (law/Moses/) and the wine (Spirit/prophets) were present. Blessings...

i think its 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 but i think it doesn't really teach purgatory, it seems to me prayers for the dead are linked with the belief of a resurection here, not an afterlive right after death.

And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:  For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. (KJV)

QuoteBut, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

the Books of the Maccabees are ancient Jewish literature

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

Tony,

Your reasoning is simple and IMO correct.
Surely you are not the first one that ever read those verses. It makes me wonder how the contrary is still be thaught? Perhaps because of this the Lazarus and Rich men parable.
I've seen it taken literally on several sites.
Before Jesus hell was split up into 2 parts as the parable describes.
The people in both parts where resurrected. But neither of them where in heaven.
After Jesus died the paradise part got transfered to heaven.

What if your rendition is inaccurate?  Ever read hebrews 11?  And then the first verse of Hebrws 12?  Not only are they alive (spirtually). . .but you're surrounded by them.

What if my rendition is accurate?  :dontknow:

Heb 12:1 Surely, in consequence, then, we also, having so vast a cloud of witnesses encompassing us, putting off every impediment and the popular sin, may be racing with endurance the contest lying before us,

The above verse is not talking about dead saints who are somehow alive in some spirit realm surrounding the believers of that day.

The writer of Hebrews just wrote concerning the witnesses to faith. Now the writer is talking about being surrounded by the tens of thousands of witnesses to faith in Israel who are still alive, and, in consequence of those witnesses are putting off every impediment and the popular sin and are racing . . . .

Quote from: WhiteWings on February 07, 2009, 08:17:01 AM
Brian

QuoteAlso, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

Quote
Please quote that verse.

Good grief, how should I know?
But according to a piecemeal Google search, it's supposed to be 2 Maccabees 39-46, I guess.

I was just wondering if there were any former Catholics out there who were familiar with this dichotomy of the RC church. It's according to them the only true church. You must confess your sins to a RC priest to be absolved etc, etc. They were from what I gather, supposedly the inventors of ET starting in the 3rd century school of theology in Carthage.
But then there's this seemingly 180 degree spin where priests and popes are apparently touting not just universalism, but unitarianism as well. What John MacArthur described as being within the fabric of Catholicism for centuries. Needless to say, it's a real brain bender of a dichotomy. RC doctrine diametrically opposed to RC doctrine regarding salvation and hell.

Quote from: Brian on February 09, 2009, 10:06:21 PM

But then there's this seemingly 180 degree spin where priests and popes are apparently touting not just universalism, but unitarianism as well. What John MacArthur described as being within the fabric of Catholicism for centuries. Needless to say, it's a real brain bender of a dichotomy. RC doctrine diametrically opposed to RC doctrine regarding salvation and hell.

My first reaction to this is admittedly a little fearful (you're not a priest are you Brian, I guess I just confessed).  Anyway, my thought is, "if the RCs start touting UR, and they're the folks highly responsible for the whole ET mess, PLUS they are suspiciously/unfavorably looked upon by Protestants (in general)....what does that do to the perception of the UR message"?  Like it could get any worse  :laughing7:.    UNLESS, it's a move of God, starting to "break the ranks".  Then no fear, right?   Hmmmmm....

Quote from: Tony N on February 08, 2009, 06:19:30 PM
Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

What if you're misreading John 3:13? Which heaven would this be? Paul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse. :dontknow: Regardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

RCC moving towards UR?
Last thing I read they are moving away from it.
The previous pope viewed hell as something doomy. No fire but separation from God.
The current pope believes in hellfire.

My parents where raised RCC. And indeed they had to confess weekly.
I actually made them lie more....
They made up little sins because they had to confess something.
The 'bigger' sins are never confessed  :laughing7:

Quote from: Doc on February 10, 2009, 01:22:36 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 08, 2009, 06:19:30 PM
Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

QuoteWhat if you're misreading John 3:13?

What if I'm not?

Quote
Which heaven would this be?

The heaven He went to. The heaven He taught His disciples prayed about in which the Father was, where Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in flesh and bones.

QuotePaul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse. :dontknow:

They are neither in heaven nor in hell. They are dead. I assume nothing.

QuoteRegardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

Yes it does.

Quote from: Tony N on February 10, 2009, 02:57:44 AM

Quote from: Doc on February 10, 2009, 01:22:36 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 08, 2009, 06:19:30 PM
Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

QuoteWhat if you're misreading John 3:13?

What if I'm not?

Quote
Which heaven would this be?

The heaven He went to. The heaven He taught His disciples prayed about in which the Father was, where Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in flesh and bones.

QuotePaul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse. :dontknow:

They are neither in heaven nor in hell. They are dead. I assume nothing.

QuoteRegardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

Yes it does.

I'm sorry Tony, but the above  qualifies as neither an argument or an actual response to discussion.
It's the equivalent of telling your kids, "because I told you so."

Simplistic, face-value, overly literalistic readings of scripture are what got us into the ET mess.

Quote from: Doc on February 10, 2009, 03:34:57 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 10, 2009, 02:57:44 AM

Quote from: Doc on February 10, 2009, 01:22:36 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 08, 2009, 06:19:30 PM
Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

QuoteWhat if you're misreading John 3:13?

What if I'm not?

Quote
Which heaven would this be?

The heaven He went to. The heaven He taught His disciples prayed about in which the Father was, where Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in flesh and bones.

QuotePaul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse. :dontknow:

They are neither in heaven nor in hell. They are dead. I assume nothing.

QuoteRegardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

Yes it does.

I'm sorry Tony, but the above  qualifies as neither an argument or an actual response to discussion.
It's the equivalent of telling your kids, "because I told you so."

Simplistic, face-value, overly literalistic readings of scripture are what got us into the ET mess.

I'm sorry Doc but you speak of "maybes." A maybe does not qualify as an argument. It is equivalent to telling your kids, "maybe the moon is made of cheese."

Literalistic readings did not get us into the ET mess. It was the mistranslation of the words aion and aionios. Had they stuck with the literal meanings of those words they would never have gotten into the ET mess.

Quote from: Tony N on February 10, 2009, 04:05:50 AM

Quote from: Doc on February 10, 2009, 03:34:57 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 10, 2009, 02:57:44 AM

Quote from: Doc on February 10, 2009, 01:22:36 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 08, 2009, 06:19:30 PM
Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

QuoteWhat if you're misreading John 3:13?

What if I'm not?

Quote
Which heaven would this be?

The heaven He went to. The heaven He taught His disciples prayed about in which the Father was, where Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in flesh and bones.

QuotePaul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse. :dontknow:

They are neither in heaven nor in hell. They are dead. I assume nothing.

QuoteRegardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

Yes it does.

I'm sorry Tony, but the above  qualifies as neither an argument or an actual response to discussion.
It's the equivalent of telling your kids, "because I told you so."

Simplistic, face-value, overly literalistic readings of scripture are what got us into the ET mess.

I'm sorry Doc but you speak of "maybes." A maybe does not qualify as an argument. It is equivalent to telling your kids, "maybe the moon is made of cheese."

Literalistic readings did not get us into the ET mess. It was the mistranslation of the words aion and aionios. Had they stuck with the literal meanings of those words they would never have gotten into the ET mess.

I speak of "maybes", because I don't like to presume upon a text that leaves some room for interpretation.

I was trying to have a discussion, but you seem bent on turning it into an argument. I'm not going to turn this into an 18 page shooting match like you had with Gabe on the aionios thread. Therefore, I bid you adieu and good day, since you clearly have your mind made up and are not interested in having a discussion.

Quote from: Tony N on February 09, 2009, 09:05:25 PM
What if my rendition is accurate?  :dontknow:

Heb 12:1 Surely, in consequence, then, we also, having so vast a cloud of witnesses encompassing us, putting off every impediment and the popular sin, may be racing with endurance the contest lying before us,

The above verse is not talking about dead saints who are somehow alive in some spirit realm surrounding the believers of that day.

The writer of Hebrews just wrote concerning the witnesses to faith. Now the writer is talking about being surrounded by the tens of thousands of witnesses to faith in Israel who are still alive, and, in consequence of those witnesses are putting off every impediment and the popular sin and are racing . . . .

Jeeze Tony . . .to believe it your way is to throw out the entire chapter eleven.  Why would he go into such detail naming all the saints who have gone on before us . . .and then tell you that you're surrounded by other Jews . . .I'm not going to argue this . . . but i will say that once again . .we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Dear Nathan, is is said of those of chapter 11 that "In faith died all these . . . " (Heb 11:13).

They are dead. They have been dead for over 2000 years. They were dead when the writer of Hebrews wrote Hebrews. Those dead must await the resurrection before meeting their Saviour, not before.

"The dead know nothing."

We believers of the nations must also wait for Christ to come in the air before we ever meet Him.

Quote from: Nathan on February 10, 2009, 09:29:02 PM
we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I wonder who's on the dark side of that spectrum :crywipe:

Quote from: WhiteWings on February 10, 2009, 10:05:34 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 10, 2009, 09:29:02 PM
we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I wonder who's on the dark side of that spectrum :crywipe:

I'm not on the red shift end because that would show me moving away but a blue shift because I'm always moving towards the epicenter of the truth, at least from Christ's vantage point in the universe.  :happygrin:

I thought this might be a bit of an interesting aside to insert here: (Or indeed in any thread where there is disagreement or dogmatism over interpretation)

From this website: http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/95theses.shtml


21. Contrary to the dispensationalists' central affirmation of the  "plain interpretation" of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) employing (alleged) literalism, the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex angels (1 Pet 1:12), the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15-16), and potential converts (Acts 8:30-35); requires growth in grace to understand (Heb 5:11-14) and special teachers to explain (2 Tim 2:2); and is susceptible to false teachers distorting it (1 Tim 1:7).

:msealed:

The very title "againstdispensationalism" shows that they, in fact are the very ones who don't understand. In fact they are the fox guarding the chicken coop.

While I don't believe in dispensationalism because it is falsly named; it should be "administrationalism," I do believe that it is part of correctly cutting or rightly dividing the Scriptures.

I do agree with you that it comes with maturity and proper teachers who are mature enough to understand Paul's writings.

Let's look at some of the Scriptures your source quoted:
They wrote: the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex angels (1 Pet 1:12)

The bible actually says:
1Pe 1:12 To whom it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to you they dispensed them, of which you were now informed through those who are bringing the evangel to you by holy spirit dispatched from heaven, into which messengers are yearning to peer."

It does not state that the messengers are perplexed by the depth of Scripture. It says rather they they have a great curiosity in yearning to peer into the evangel.

They wrote: the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex . . .  the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15-16),

The above quote does not mean that the depth of Scripture can perplex Peter but this:

2Pe 3:15 And be deeming the patience of our Lord salvation, according as our beloved brother Paul also writes to you, according to the wisdom given to him,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to apprehend, which the unlearned and unstable are twisting, as the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction."

He stated that, some of what Paul wrote, was hard to apprehend as it should because his epistles were written to and meant for the nations who are under grace and not meant for the Circumcision believers. And some of the unlearned and unstable were twisting what he wrote as the rest of the scriptures also.

Maybe they meant that the depth of Scripture is what Paul wrote?

Anyway, just my 2 pence worth, which, with inflation, is probably worth -4 cents.

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 01:46:54 AM
The very title "againstdispensationalism" shows that they, in fact are the very ones who don't understand. In fact they are the fox guarding the chicken coop.

While I don't believe in dispensationalism because it is falsly named; it should be "administrationalism," I do believe that it is part of correctly cutting or rightly dividing the Scriptures.

I'm a little perplexed as to what you meant by these statements. Can you explain what you meant in the first paragraph?

As to the second, do you mean that you don't believe in "dispensationalism" simply because it's mis-named, or do you mean that you believe that dispensational theology is correct, but misnamed?

Deut 18:9-14, YLT...
9 `When thou art coming in unto the land which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee, thou dost not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations:
10 there is not found in thee one causing his son and his daughter to pass over into fire, a user of divinations, an observer of clouds, and an enchanter, and a sorcerer,
11 and a charmer, and one asking at a familiar spirit, and a wizard, and one seeking unto the dead.
12 `For the abomination of Jehovah is every one doing these, and because of these abominations is Jehovah thy God dispossessing them from thy presence.
13 Perfect thou art with Jehovah thy God,
14 for these nations whom thou art possessing, unto observers of clouds, and unto diviners, do hearken; and thou--not so hath Jehovah thy God suffered thee.

(see also 1 Sam 28:3-25)

It seems clear that if Moses and Elijah were dead then Jesus was defying God's law and was worthy of a death sentence as the law prescribed.

Hi reFORMer,

Jesus wasn't seeking unto the dead. It was just a vision.

If Moses was truly alive when he met Christ on that mount then Moses beat Jesus to who was the firstfruit of vivification. Likewise Elijah also had immortality thus beating Christ to the punch for immortality.

No, reFORMer, Moses and Elijah have been dead many many years. I hope this belief among Universalists does not go the way of the Catholic church in which they all start praying to dead saints.

So . .Tony . .according to your "end of the spectrum"  one of your favorite claims to fame are "that's not what it actually says/said"  And that is your platform to your attempts to poke holes in my, and other's speculations of a deeper meaning than what lies on the surface of Scripture.

According to you . . .there are "some" places in Scripture that "can" have another meaning . .but definitely not all . .and only in the discernment of the one reading .  .which is to say. . .not all Scripture can be taken in the same level of understanding . . . such as . . .when women are told to be silent . . he's not referring to our churches today to have the women be silent . .only to that church in Corinth . . .but yet . . .the majority of other passages . . .it's the opposite . . . we "are" to take it literally.  And this all seems to be based on your intelligence of Scripture. 

And from there, you spend the majority of your days on this forum, cutting down the "hyper spiritual" points of view because apparently, in your eyes, there are many false teachings being aired out on these forums that you have been appointed to identify and issolate from the rest of the sheep that read these posts.

I totally disagree with you on most every post because of your brittleness toward spiritual perspectives  of myself and others.  While at the same time, I believe that we all are given grace and mercy from the Father as we all pursue the Son and mature within the arena where we are called to walk.  So even though, I disagree with you . .and you with me . . . I still consider you a brother and your contributions to this forum are no less important than anyone else in whom I "am" in total agreement with.

Having said all of that . . . "If" you didn't already know how things fell into place following Peter's dream . . ..  If "you" had this sheet of unclean animals lower from the heavens in front of you . . . would "you" be able to make the connection between eating unclean animals . . .and the gospel changing it's direction from Jew to Gentile?

What if after Peter woke up and these messengers of Cornelius approached him and he denounced them as they were Gentiles and he was a Jew . . .because technically . . .the dream had nothing to do with Jews and Gentiles . . .it was about eating unclean animals . . .or . .in "your" words . . ."That's not what it says . . ."

Peter had a dream . . .then he had a revelation of that dream . . .we have the written word . .but we also have revelations of that written word . .and the revelations may or may not have ANYTHING to do with what is actually written.  By embracing the original text . . . I am ignoring the spiritual intent that the text was pointing to. 

In this dream of Peters . . .God could have just as easily had a Jew be rejected and a Gentile be accepted . . he did that in other areas . .the rich man and Lazrus is a prime example of this . . . But I believe that the major factor that activates the power of Life is the SPIRIT (invisible) of Truth.  And spirit does not come by logical reasoning . .it comes by faith.  Seeing the thigns that can't be seen . . and speaking out things as though they are. 

That's what flying is all about in the spirit . . .it's depending totally on things and principles that can not be seen by natural reasoning . . but by faith . . .

 :cloud9: It was a vision, a vision of the realm of Spirit, specifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

Matt: 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.  

Luke 9: 30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory,, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

You're using the term vision, as if it was an apparition or "vision" of the dead here. God is a God of the living, not of the dead, and if they were "dead" and speaking to Him, then it would have been the sin of necromancy. As the text states, they appeared in glory. Blessings....

[Tell the] "vision" [to no man..]



"vision"

G3705
ὅραμα
horama
hor'-am-ah
From G3708; something gazed at, that is, a spectacle (especially supernatural): - sight, vision.



G3708
ὁράω
horaō
hor-ah'-o
Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern clearly (physically or mentally); by extension to attend to; by Hebraism to experience; passively to appear: - behold, perceive, see, take heed.

Nathan, If I say "that is not what it actually says" and it is found to not be what it actually says, then it is true that it is not what it actually says.

Just like what you wrote as a case in point. You say over and over Peter had a dream. That is not what it actually says. Most Bibles say
(KJV)  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Now if it said "he fell asleep and dreamed" I would be wrong to say "that is not what it actually says." But the bible says he went into a trance and saw a vision. And so if I believe it was a trance and a vision I am accused of using "natural reasoning" and not being "spiritual"? Actually, to state it is a dream and sleep is unspiritual for it is not believing what was written.

QuoteNathan wrote: According to you . . .there are "some" places in Scripture that "can" have another meaning . .but definitely not all

And you don't believe that? Do you believe "Judas hung himself" was told in some esoteric way that only the initiated can understand? What is the spiritual meaning to that? It is what it is.

We are told concerning the unclean animals Peter saw in his vision while in a trance that they are concerning the Gentiles. "God sent His Son into the world to save sinners" does not have some double hidden meaning. It takes God's spirit and grace to believe it at face value.

I'm a little curious as to  what I said that you don't agree with.

Quote from: Cardinalspecifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

Are you saying the two cherubim are the law and the prophets?

Quote from: Cardinal on February 11, 2009, 06:23:04 PM
:cloud9: It was a vision, a vision of the realm of Spirit, specifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

Matt: 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.  

Luke 9: 30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory,, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

You're using the term vision, as if it was an apparition or "vision" of the dead here. God is a God of the living, not of the dead, and if they were "dead" and speaking to Him, then it would have been the sin of necromancy. As the text states, they appeared in glory. Blessings....

It is impossible that Moses and Elijah were literally there speaking with Jesus. It is impossible for Moses and Elijah to be alive. If they are alive they beat Jesus to the punch for "firstfruit of vivification." Jesus would be a kind of third fruit.
Long after Elijah died John wrote that "Joh 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

I believe John was divinely inspired by God to write that.  It was just a vision Jesus and the discipled had. Just believe the Scriptures. That is the spiritual thing to do.

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 06:43:41 PM

Quote from: Cardinal on February 11, 2009, 06:23:04 PM
:cloud9: It was a vision, a vision of the realm of Spirit, specifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

Matt: 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.  

Luke 9: 30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory,, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

You're using the term vision, as if it was an apparition or "vision" of the dead here. God is a God of the living, not of the dead, and if they were "dead" and speaking to Him, then it would have been the sin of necromancy. As the text states, they appeared in glory. Blessings....

It is impossible that Moses and Elijah were literally there speaking with Jesus. It is impossible for Moses and Elijah to be alive. If they are alive they beat Jesus to the punch for "firstfruit of vivification." Jesus would be a kind of third fruit.
Long after Elijah died John wrote that "Joh 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

I believe John was divinely inspired by God to write that.  It was just a vision Jesus and the discipled had. Just believe the Scriptures. That is the spiritual thing to do.

Jesus has already pre-empted everyone, as he must--

...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.[Rev 13:8]

Quote from: TonyNathan, If I say "that is not what it actually says" and it is found to not be what it actually says, then it is true that it is not what it actually says.

Just like what you wrote as a case in point. You say over and over Peter had a dream. That is not what it actually says. Most Bibles say
(KJV)  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Now if it said "he fell asleep and dreamed" I would be wrong to say "that is not what it actually says." But the bible says he went into a trance and saw a vision. And so if I believe it was a trance and a vision I am accused of using "natural reasoning" and not being "spiritual"? Actually, to state it is a dream and sleep is unspiritual for it is not believing what was written.

They are wide awake here--


2After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.

5Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 6(He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

7Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"

8Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.

--Mark 9





They are wide awake here--


1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

--Mat 17

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 06:38:39 PM
Nathan, If I say "that is not what it actually says" and it is found to not be what it actually says, then it is true that it is not what it actually says.

Just like what you wrote as a case in point. You say over and over Peter had a dream. That is not what it actually says. Most Bibles say
(KJV)  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Now if it said "he fell asleep and dreamed" I would be wrong to say "that is not what it actually says." But the bible says he went into a trance and saw a vision. And so if I believe it was a trance and a vision I am accused of using "natural reasoning" and not being "spiritual"? Actually, to state it is a dream and sleep is unspiritual for it is not believing what was written.

QuoteNathan wrote: According to you . . .there are "some" places in Scripture that "can" have another meaning . .but definitely not all

And you don't believe that? Do you believe "Judas hung himself" was told in some esoteric way that only the initiated can understand? What is the spiritual meaning to that? It is what it is.

We are told concerning the unclean animals Peter saw in his vision while in a trance that they are concerning the Gentiles. "God sent His Son into the world to save sinners" does not have some double hidden meaning. It takes God's spirit and grace to believe it at face value.

I'm a little curious as to  what I said that you don't agree with.

What I believe is that there "is" a literal understanding to everything that was written . . . TO THOSE TO WHOM IT WAS LITERALLY WRITTEN TO . . ."That" generation . . . not this one.  Flesh profiteth nothing. . . .it does no spiritual good for me to apply every thing literally.  Yes, it all literally happened . .there was a literal Adam . . .Noah, Job . .they were all real.  Yes, there are many things that are yet a mystery, but the mystery becomes an "impossiblity" when we try to logitimize spiritual truth with natural reasoning . . . it's why you can't see the vision/dream/trance . . .for me they are all one and the same . . .regardless of your insistance . . .the only difference between a dream and a vision . .for me is . ..a dream comes when you're asleep, a vision comes when you're awake . .but both are real. 

Your logic is just frustrating . .why would God reveal to Peter, James and John, images of Moses and Elijah, if your doctrine on the dead is true?  Why would God create an image of dead men encouraging Jesus?  That's just ridiculous.  The fact is . . . for you to accept this, would mean you have to admit you're not as right as you think you are.  It's much harder tearing down an old concept to make way for a new one, than it is learning a new one the first time around.

It's the same pattern as was in the garden . . .much dividing came before creating could begin . . .

But yes, all things have a place of literal understanding . . . all things have a moral application as well . . .and . .most importantly above those two . . .all things . . .ALL THINGS have a spiritual truth within them as well.   The experience Peter had . .whether it was a trance, dream, or vision WHO CARES . . . your gift is that you dirty the clarity of the vehicle that was used to bring the message . .that you miss the message.  The message is not whether or not it was a dream or a trance . .the message is . . .the gospel's primary audience just had a major change of venue. 

The message is that there IS a spiritual reality within the vehicle of every LITERAL experience. 

There "was" a physical man named Judas . . .when have I ever implied that there wasn't?  You create arguments out of assumptions within your own mind.  Judas was a man that was not led by the spirit, but by his flesh . . .and the end result was suicide.

When "I" allow the Judas in me to dominate . . .it leads to spiritual death.  It is not what it is for everyone . . .it is what it is for those who refuse to see any further than the end of their limited logic.  And that isn't an accusation . .simply an observation . . . you've made it very clear that you can not see how Moses and Elijah could actually be alive . . . I can. 

Unless "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" is only pertaining to my physical body.  The same physical body that is at enmity . . .that is under the curse . . . that prifits nothing . . .

No bud, the truth is, these guys are as alive as the birds in flight . . .it's just they are in a dimension beyond your natural vision . . .and apparently understanding as well.

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.

Tony, I say this in all sincerity; I'm not trying to "jab" at you here, but I think you may be treading on somewhat dangerous ground by being too literal with your interpretations. My own experience has been that we don't grow as Sons or learn the deeper truths of scripture by approaching it with such unrelenting literalism. Granted, I think there are dangers in both extremes, whether hyper-literalizing or hyper-spiritualizing.

BTW, I didn't see a response from you as to my last question(s) regarding your comments about dispensationalism.

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.

Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 08:21:55 PM
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."

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 08:41:09 PM

Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 08:21:55 PM
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.

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 08:39:14 PM
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". 

Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 09:05:06 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 08:41:09 PM

Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 08:21:55 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 10:18:44 PM

Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 09:05:06 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 11, 2009, 08:41:09 PM

Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 08:21:55 PM
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.

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."

Quote from: Tony N on February 12, 2009, 01:35:41 AM
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....

Quote
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.

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. :gthumbsup:

(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

Quote from: jabcat on February 12, 2009, 03:25:48 AM
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 :laughing7:) 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.    :gthumbsup:

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"?

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  :mshock:.  Don't you just hate that?  :mblush:

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  :thumbsup:.

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

"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...

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

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 06:51:41 PM
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."

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?

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 08:42:43 PM
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.

Quote from: Tony N on February 12, 2009, 08:57:51 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 08:42:43 PM
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.

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

QuoteIt 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'

QuoteHow 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.

QuoteThe 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?

QuoteWhy 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.

QuoteGod 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
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.  :thumbsup:

Quote from: Doc on February 12, 2009, 09:11:10 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 12, 2009, 08:57:51 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 08:42:43 PM
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.

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 10:36:10 PM

QuoteNo, 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: Tony N on February 12, 2009, 11:54:12 PM

Quote from: Doc on February 12, 2009, 09:11:10 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 12, 2009, 08:57:51 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 08:42:43 PM
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.

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."

Quote from: TonyHow 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.

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 02:31:50 AM

Quote from: TonyHow 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.

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 02:25:06 AM
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.  :sigh: 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.  :eyebrow:

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.

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 03:02:16 AM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 02:31:50 AM

Quote from: TonyHow 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.

  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

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.  :laughing7:

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.

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 04:29:32 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 03:02:16 AM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 02:31:50 AM

Quote from: TonyHow 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.

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?

 :cloud9: 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...

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

Quote from: Nathan on February 13, 2009, 03:56:57 PM

QuoteLet'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?

QuoteCome 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.

QuoteJesus 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.

QuoteToo 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.

QuoteNor 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.

QuoteWhich 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.

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

QuoteHow 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.

QuoteEver 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.

QuoteThere'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.

QuoteBottom 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.

QuoteWhy 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.

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.

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 08:11:02 PM
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

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).

QuoteI 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 :winkgrin:

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

QuoteNathan, 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.

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 08:07:28 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 12, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
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. :bgdance:

QuoteYou 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 :icon_flower:

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 08:56:21 PM

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).

QuoteI 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 :winkgrin:

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.

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 08:22:47 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 08:11:02 PM
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

:LH: :LH: :LH: :Party: :goodone: :goodone:

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 08:56:21 PM
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.

Quote from: PneumaLeviticus 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.

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 09:19:04 PM

QuoteYou 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 :icon_flower:

Now Scott....MOD HAT ON!!!! :icon_flower:

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  :laughing7:   rolf!    :icon_king:

:icon_joker:

Taffy is back to claim his flowers!

:bgdance:

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 09:59:18 PM
Taffy is back to claim his flowers!

:bgdance:

Hi Molly :icon_flower:

You said it Girl...Scott was just trying to draw me out some... :happygrin: :grin: :laughing7: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 08:22:47 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 08:11:02 PM
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

The Bible does not say He walked through a physical literal solid wall.

Don't you read your bible?

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:06:49 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 08:22:47 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 08:11:02 PM
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

The Bible does not say He walked through a physical literal solid wall.

Don't you read your bible?

Not the same one you do my friend.

cp

Not even close.

cp

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:02:16 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 09:59:18 PM
Taffy is back to claim his flowers!

:bgdance:

Hi Molly :icon_flower:

You said it Girl...Scott was just trying to draw me out some... :happygrin: :grin: :laughing7: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

And, in the nick of time, too.

We were just about to make a calf out of the flowers and dance around it.

:mrflo:

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:09:55 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:06:49 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 08:22:47 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 08:11:02 PM
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

The Bible does not say He walked through a physical literal solid wall.

Don't you read your bible?

Not the same one you do my friend.

cp

What Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:06:49 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 08:22:47 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 08:11:02 PM
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

The Bible does not say He walked through a physical literal solid wall.

Don't you read your bible?

Tony, I believe a lot of things that are not written in the Bible. Do you?

cp

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:13:23 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:09:55 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:06:49 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 08:22:47 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 08:11:02 PM
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

The Bible does not say He walked through a physical literal solid wall.

Don't you read your bible?

Not the same one you do my friend.

cp

What Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

Tony, you are making assumptions again. Be very cardful. Did I say there was a Bible that said He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

cp

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 09:07:25 PM

QuoteNathan, 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.

Hi pneuma, I think this is what I was replying about which you wrote earlier:

QuoteAnd 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.

How is His flesh different than ours?

Of course I don't believe He had death operating in His flesh like we do. If His flesh is different are His bones different too?

Tony:
What Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

cp:
Tony, you are making assumptions again. Be very cardful. Did I say there was a Bible that said He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

Tony:
Oh! O.K. so you just made it up. Now I know.

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.

Molly, of course you are correct but Tony is playing his very effective game again. If cornered He turns to a rendering of the Scriptures that will use words or phrases that will say what he needs it to say and then say, 'It is what it is.'

I must say though that Tonys style is extremely effective. He has hooked me even now and I see he is in control of many of the threads here at Tentmaker in the sense he has hooked a number of people. If I were of a more suspicious nature I would wonder what Tonys real agenda is. Now I am sounding like the accuser ain't I? Just want to be truthful here.

Tony, I don't want to make this about you but you have a way about you that concerns me and I know concerns others too. You have a way of giving in just in time to keep others going with you and then you seem to have a way to annoy the heck out of a lot well meaning people. You have mastered the balance of just enough humility with a good dose of arrogance to keep people discussing things with you.

My huge concern is that I wonder if the aggravation and frustration I see you causing is outweighed by the good I see.

Just my outspoken opinions. I have been in your shoes. I like it here at TM but for some reason you kind of tick me off. Why? Its probably not you but it is my bad but there it is.

You and I are reading a very different Bible, Tony and I don't say this just because of some word differences or differences in intepretation. There is something adversarial in all of us but I am concerned about your adversarial nature. I am one nasty individual so I am not one to talk so take my comments for what they are worth to you.

cp

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Just maybe HE had a KEY and unlocked the the Gates of Hades :icon_flower:

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:11:09 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:02:16 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 09:59:18 PM
Taffy is back to claim his flowers!

:bgdance:

Hi Molly :icon_flower:

You said it Girl...Scott was just trying to draw me out some... :happygrin: :grin: :laughing7: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

And, in the nick of time, too.

We were just about to make a calf out of the flowers and dance around it.

:mrflo:

Did Moses hear ya say that...You need a Beating with a ROD girl, and beat that DEATH out ya!

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

BINGO! Classic Tony. Me thinks we are being played here.

cp

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

MAYBE, MAYBE AND mAYBE....OR maybe HE walked through the WALL...or HE was JUST the KEY to the DOOR.... :icon_flower:

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

Yes, that's true.  But something happened that is not normal.  lol

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:39:02 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

BINGO! Classic Tony. Me thinks we are being played here.

cp

Nope, wrong again. I don't play games, cp. Serious. I don't.

Remember Philip who was baptizing the eunuch in Acts? The eunuch went down under the water and Philip vanished. He was then seen in another city. Did Philip have special flesh we don't have? No. It was all done by the holy spirit.

If Philip can just vanish and appear out of nowhere in another city why in blue blazins can't Jesus be in some city and just all of a sudden appear in a room that is locked then vanish like Philip did?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, cp.

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:41:02 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

MAYBE, MAYBE AND mAYBE....OR maybe HE walked through the WALL...or HE was JUST the KEY to the DOOR.... :icon_flower:

Maybe He didn't need a key. Maybe He just willed the door to unlock itself and it did.

I see so much of this talk as taking us away from Jesus. I see it as taking us into an arena with Tony. I want to draw closer to Jesus via this forum, not debate endlessly and may I say, meaninglessly, with Tony but wherever I look, there he is and I don't mean Jesus.

I have found good via Tony's discussions but when you really look at all the arguing here and the flippant way Tony expertly keeps the frustration going, again, I got to wonder what's really up here.

I have said much that can be used to condemn me here so I will stop and see which way the wind blows.

God Bless you all and that includes you too Tony.

cp

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:45:38 PM
I see so much of this talk as taking us away from Jesus. I see it as taking us into an arena with Tony. I want to draw closer to Jesus via this forum, not debate endlessly and may I say, meaninglessly, with Tony but wherever I look, there he is and I don't mean Jesus.

I have found good via Tony's discussions but when you really look at all the arguing here and the flippant way Tony expertly keeps the frustration going, again, I got to wonder what's really up here.

I have said much that can be used to condemn me here so I will stop and see which way the wind blows.

God Bless you all and that includes you too Tony.

cp

Yea, they said the same about Jesus. They would tell Him He is good but .... well, Jesus we think you have a demon.
So with one hand they pat His back and with the other they slap Him in the face.

cp, the real problem that makes you mad is your philosophies are found to not really match up with the Scriptures. So you get mad at me. If you wish to remedy the situation try reading a good translation, and start believing God concerning it.

Also, I don't just flippantly answer people as you accuse me of. I really think about what people say and try to be helpful.

In fact, this whole conversation is leading toward Jesus. To state philosophical ideas that Jesus is not flesh and bones, that He is spirit, that He has a different flesh etc. etc. etc. is leading away from the Scriptures and hence away from Jesus.

Tony, I still am curious about a question you avoided.

Tony, I believe a lot of things that are not written in the Bible. Do you?

cp

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:53:29 PM
Tony, I still am curious about a question you avoided.

Tony, I believe a lot of things that are not written in the Bible. Do you?

cp

No, actually, I don't. If it pertains to the Bible, no.

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:50:54 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:45:38 PM
I see so much of this talk as taking us away from Jesus. I see it as taking us into an arena with Tony. I want to draw closer to Jesus via this forum, not debate endlessly and may I say, meaninglessly, with Tony but wherever I look, there he is and I don't mean Jesus.

I have found good via Tony's discussions but when you really look at all the arguing here and the flippant way Tony expertly keeps the frustration going, again, I got to wonder what's really up here.

I have said much that can be used to condemn me here so I will stop and see which way the wind blows.

God Bless you all and that includes you too Tony.

cp

Yea, they said the same about Jesus. They would tell Him He is good but .... well, Jesus we think you have a demon.
So with one hand they pat His back and with the other they slap Him in the face.

cp, the real problem that makes you mad is your philosophies are found to not really match up with the Scriptures. So you get mad at me. If you wish to remedy the situation try reading a good translation, and start believing God concerning it.

Also, I don't just flippantly answer people as you accuse me of. I really think about what people say and try to be helpful.

In fact, this whole conversation is leading toward Jesus. To state philosophical ideas that Jesus is not flesh and bones, that He is spirit, that He has a different flesh etc. etc. etc. is leading away from the Scriptures and hence away from Jesus.

The Concordant Literal New and Old Test is one of my favorites but I don't worship even that translation. I try to see the message behind the words, the message of the Spirit.

cp

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:44:33 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:41:02 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

MAYBE, MAYBE AND mAYBE....OR maybe HE walked through the WALL...or HE was JUST the KEY to the DOOR.... :icon_flower:

Maybe He didn't need a key. Maybe He just willed the door to unlock itself and it did.

Hi Bro
Tis been a LONG tough week this end Bro...but brother you make me smile some...no offence bro, please dont take it so...I assure its in good taste brud.

AFTER eight DAYS....Kinda New beginnings Egh ?..

I was Kinda a seeing HIM as the KEY\S which open the VEIL Of the hearts of MAN, ( within)KINDA SEE The doors of MY lips as the Mouth TOO bro...SHUT....

Jhn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within1) to within,
into

2) within

a) the internal inner man

b) the soul, conscience
, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you


Psa 141:3 Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.

seems not long afterward they were Blessed with NEW tongues too :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

2Cr 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

to be honest, I think the doctrine of any form of life right after death before the ressurection is a doctrine of demons and an unscriptural heresy we should reject (I think the discussion goes in this direction or am I wrong?).

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:35:55 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Just maybe HE had a KEY and unlocked the the Gates of Hades :icon_flower:

wow! :mshock:

The fastest way to put out a fire . . .is to stop feeding it.  Remove the fuel, you remove the fire.

See you guys tomorrow.

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 11:01:40 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:50:54 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:45:38 PM
I see so much of this talk as taking us away from Jesus. I see it as taking us into an arena with Tony. I want to draw closer to Jesus via this forum, not debate endlessly and may I say, meaninglessly, with Tony but wherever I look, there he is and I don't mean Jesus.

I have found good via Tony's discussions but when you really look at all the arguing here and the flippant way Tony expertly keeps the frustration going, again, I got to wonder what's really up here.

I have said much that can be used to condemn me here so I will stop and see which way the wind blows.

God Bless you all and that includes you too Tony.

cp

Yea, they said the same about Jesus. They would tell Him He is good but .... well, Jesus we think you have a demon.
So with one hand they pat His back and with the other they slap Him in the face.

cp, the real problem that makes you mad is your philosophies are found to not really match up with the Scriptures. So you get mad at me. If you wish to remedy the situation try reading a good translation, and start believing God concerning it.

Also, I don't just flippantly answer people as you accuse me of. I really think about what people say and try to be helpful.

In fact, this whole conversation is leading toward Jesus. To state philosophical ideas that Jesus is not flesh and bones, that He is spirit, that He has a different flesh etc. etc. etc. is leading away from the Scriptures and hence away from Jesus.

The Concordant Literal New and Old Test is one of my favorites but I don't worship even that translation. I try to see the message behind the words, the message of the Spirit.

cp

I don't worship any translation either.
The message of the Spirit does not contradict what the Spirit gave us as truth in the Scriptures.

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:55:08 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:53:29 PM
Tony, I still am curious about a question you avoided.

Tony, I believe a lot of things that are not written in the Bible. Do you?

cp

No, actually, I don't. If it pertains to the Bible, no.

Says much to me Tony but again I am just a man so it really doesn't matter what I am seeing in your ways.

Does electricity pertain to the Bible? Does the life of Gearge Washington pertain to the Bible? Does the intricacies of nature and the cosmos pertain to the Bible? Many things in these areas I believe in, yet are not in the Bible.

God, you did it again, here I am conversing with you total nonsense.

Sorry, my bad.

You win Tony. You are way beyond me. You could have me barking like a dog in a minute.

cp

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 11:02:16 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:44:33 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:41:02 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

MAYBE, MAYBE AND mAYBE....OR maybe HE walked through the WALL...or HE was JUST the KEY to the DOOR.... :icon_flower:

Maybe He didn't need a key. Maybe He just willed the door to unlock itself and it did.

Hi Bro
Tis been a LONG tough week this end Bro...but brother you make me smile some...no offence bro, please dont take it so...I assure its in good taste brud.

AFTER eight DAYS....Kinda New beginnings Egh ?..

I was Kinda a seeing HIM as the KEY\S which open the VEIL Of the hearts of MAN, ( within)KINDA SEE The doors of MY lips as the Mouth TOO bro...SHUT....

Jhn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within1) to within,
into

2) within

a) the internal inner man

b) the soul, conscience
, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you


Psa 141:3 Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.

seems not long afterward they were Blessed with NEW tongues too :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
       you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.

--Sol 4

QuoteYou could have me barking like a dog in a minute.

Yo Nat..ya Forgot the *** mad  ***  :happygrin:


:icon_flower:

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 11:09:33 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:55:08 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:53:29 PM
Tony, I still am curious about a question you avoided.

Tony, I believe a lot of things that are not written in the Bible. Do you?

cp

No, actually, I don't. If it pertains to the Bible, no.

Says much to me Tony but again I am just a man so it really doesn't matter what I am seeing in your ways.

Does electricity pertain to the Bible? Does the life of Gearge Washington pertain to the Bible? Does the intricacies of nature and the cosmos pertain to the Bible? Many things in these areas I believe in, yet are not in the Bible.

God, you did it again, here I am conversing with you total nonsense.

Sorry, my bad.

You win Tony. You are way beyond me. You could have me barking like a dog in a minute.

cp

I don't believe in electricity.
I don't believe in George Washington.
I don't believe in the cosmos or the intricacies of nature.

I do believe in God.
I believe in the evangel.
I do believe in Jesus.

Big difference.

Now you can begin howling.  :laughing7:

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:12:54 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 11:02:16 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:44:33 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:41:02 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.



John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Dear Molly, if the Bible does not say Jesus walked through a wall then I am not beholden to believe He did.

He may be operating on a completely different time/space continuum than we. He may have just willed to be in the room and was then willed to not be in the room and was gone. But it clearly does not say "Jesus walked through a solid wall."
Tony

MAYBE, MAYBE AND mAYBE....OR maybe HE walked through the WALL...or HE was JUST the KEY to the DOOR.... :icon_flower:

Maybe He didn't need a key. Maybe He just willed the door to unlock itself and it did.

Hi Bro
Tis been a LONG tough week this end Bro...but brother you make me smile some...no offence bro, please dont take it so...I assure its in good taste brud.

AFTER eight DAYS....Kinda New beginnings Egh ?..

I was Kinda a seeing HIM as the KEY\S which open the VEIL Of the hearts of MAN, ( within)KINDA SEE The doors of MY lips as the Mouth TOO bro...SHUT....

Jhn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within1) to within,
into

2) within

a) the internal inner man

b) the soul, conscience
, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you


Psa 141:3 Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.

seems not long afterward they were Blessed with NEW tongues too :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
       you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.

--Sol 4

:icon_flower: :HeartThrob:

ya Know Molly ya see new things all the time dont we...so much going on in those scrips..I for sure only see in part

Isa 26:20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:11:09 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:02:16 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 09:59:18 PM
Taffy is back to claim his flowers!

:bgdance:

Hi Molly :icon_flower:

You said it Girl...Scott was just trying to draw me out some... :happygrin: :grin: :laughing7: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

And, in the nick of time, too.

We were just about to make a calf out of the flowers and dance around it.  :mrflo:

:cloud9: I just love Molly's sense of humor. Thanks for the chuckle, I needed that.... :thumbsup: :mrflo: :Egyptdance2:

Quote from: Cardinal on February 14, 2009, 01:19:27 AM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:11:09 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 10:02:16 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 09:59:18 PM
Taffy is back to claim his flowers!

:bgdance:

Hi Molly :icon_flower:

You said it Girl...Scott was just trying to draw me out some... :happygrin: :grin: :laughing7: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

And, in the nick of time, too.

We were just about to make a calf out of the flowers and dance around it.  :mrflo:

:cloud9: I just love Molly's sense of humor. Thanks for the chuckle, I needed that.... :thumbsup: :mrflo: :Egyptdance2:

Im glad Molly never said Cats....... :icon_flower:   ..theys True Guardians :icon_king:

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 11:14:21 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 11:09:33 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:55:08 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:53:29 PM
Tony, I still am curious about a question you avoided.

Tony, I believe a lot of things that are not written in the Bible. Do you?

cp

No, actually, I don't. If it pertains to the Bible, no.

Says much to me Tony but again I am just a man so it really doesn't matter what I am seeing in your ways.

Does electricity pertain to the Bible? Does the life of Gearge Washington pertain to the Bible? Does the intricacies of nature and the cosmos pertain to the Bible? Many things in these areas I believe in, yet are not in the Bible.

God, you did it again, here I am conversing with you total nonsense.

Sorry, my bad.

You win Tony. You are way beyond me. You could have me barking like a dog in a minute.

cp

I don't believe in electricity.
I don't believe in George Washington.
I don't believe in the cosmos or the intricacies of nature.

I do believe in God.
I believe in the evangel.
I do believe in Jesus.

Big difference.

Now you can begin howling.  :laughing7:

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes, and he is turned out for what he knows."

Mark Twain

Quote from: peacemaker on February 14, 2009, 02:13:33 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 11:14:21 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 11:09:33 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:55:08 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:53:29 PM
Tony, I still am curious about a question you avoided.

Tony, I believe a lot of things that are not written in the Bible. Do you?

cp

No, actually, I don't. If it pertains to the Bible, no.

Says much to me Tony but again I am just a man so it really doesn't matter what I am seeing in your ways.

Does electricity pertain to the Bible? Does the life of Gearge Washington pertain to the Bible? Does the intricacies of nature and the cosmos pertain to the Bible? Many things in these areas I believe in, yet are not in the Bible.

God, you did it again, here I am conversing with you total nonsense.

Sorry, my bad.

You win Tony. You are way beyond me. You could have me barking like a dog in a minute.

cp

I don't believe in electricity.
I don't believe in George Washington.
I don't believe in the cosmos or the intricacies of nature.

I do believe in God.
I believe in the evangel.
I do believe in Jesus.

Big difference.

Now you can begin howling.  :laughing7:

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes, and he is turned out for what he knows."

Mark Twain

Blessed be those with the  *LIGHT* of Knowledge Brud!  :icon_flower: , which are NOT confined by the WALLS of MEN :icon_flower:

  All mankind were first born in heaven..then sent down...where else would the sons of God come from? All mankind is ONE with Jesus..that is why he came in flesh.

  God even said 'Israel is my firstborn son'

  God sent Messiah..in the middle of the week..the 4 th day

  It is only at that time He gave to mankind the Knowledge of their spiritual inheritance...and the power to understand they are sons of God.due to rise to glory in the image of their Father
[those already risen knew..but not people down here] Jesus showed that the sons of God are resurrected and return to the Father...He said 'I am the way" ..it is the way He returned home to the heavenlies

 In the Genesis account on the fourth day He created the heavenly bodies..stars etc...just as the number of Israel would be like the sands of the sea..they are remade/reborn into the celestial  and are to populate the heavens...so when they saw His star they knew....a ruler was born...to the throne of heaven

 for this reason Jesus could speak of today and tomorrow..and on the third day  would be perfected..that is the lying down of the flesh/life/blood...to take it up again...return to the Father

 all the stars fell from heaven..do you understand that? I think not. It means all of God's full number have been sent down to the earth and are due to rise..even the end of days..

 the sons are reckoned as days..during their time here on earth
 and the daughters are reckoned as moons...when they leave this earth..it is sunset here..but it is son rise in heaven...

 when all of God's children rise..time will be no more

  God says, I am the first and the last..every son/daughter of God are made from part of His substance[remember He is all
there is and everything comes from Him]

 Rev 1;16 His face was like the sun..shining in its brilliance

  spiritual light of the sons of God are likened to the stars of heaven this way...it bespeaks spiritual eternal heavenly glory

 It is because of THIS FACT that Elijah and Enoch could rise to heaven without tasting death..they came from there.It is due
to this fact,also, that mankinds spirit and spiritual lives return
unto God

  It is part of the mystery of godliness..of GOD..the progency of
 God...Jesus tried and tell us this..when He said 'call no man on earth your Father"

 when satan heard this..he was very wrathful...he took issue with it...said 'if you really are" then on the Pharisees and sadducees he influenced them to put Jesus to death for blasphemy..coz he said 'I am a son of God"  Adam was a son of God..Jesus a son of God..ALL MANKIND ARE GOD'S CHILDREN

 satan desired to lift himself and throne above the stars of heaven..but Jesus rising was the beginning of his great fall and demise. Isaaih 14;13  that hope was dashed then. And so
he is full of wrath and goes to contend with the remnant of the seed of the woman...that being mankind, and 'especially' those
who keep the commandments and testimony of Jesus.

   satan..because he came down from heaven..thought he would rise again..God formed Adam's body from the dust of the earth
to show satan what death is...because God formed satan of the dust of heaven...dust is dust, whether of heaven or earth

  It is the SPIRIT OF LIFE THAT COUNTS..IT IS OF GOD

  AND IT IS ETERNAL and satan is not God's progency..but
  the spirit of eternal life is in mankind..and when they return to heaven..the dust returns to the dust...

   this also, is why satan/serpent was told he would eat dust all the days of his life...

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 04:23:13 AM
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.

That's because we weren't trying to prove differently. :sigh: Proving Jesus had flesh and bone was completely beside the point I was trying to make. I'm not arguing with you that Jesus didn't say he was "flesh and bones". What I was pointing out was that it is a mistake and a complete misread of what Jesus was conveying by that statement, to assert that this means that he still has the same kind of physical body we have.

It's clear to me that he was saying to them, "look, I'm really here; I've been resurrected. I'm not a "ghost"; I'm not a figment of your imagination".

He wasn't saying, "look, because I have a physical body right now that you can touch and that allows me to eat with you, means that you should interpret that to mean that this is the physical body I will always have, or that it's a physical body that's just like yours."

I read the scriptures and I see that it says that we will be given new bodies that are glorified and incorruptible, not that our old, corruptible bodies of flesh and blood (or flesh and bone) will be recycled. And that we will be like him, because we will see him as he is.


I'm not "denouncing" you for anything, just pointing out that you're being unnecessarily stubborn.  :laughing7:


And, you can't really make a comment like that about 'maturity in our walk' and expect people to take you seriously...

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:33:53 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.

Molly, of course you are correct but Tony is playing his very effective game again. If cornered He turns to a rendering of the Scriptures that will use words or phrases that will say what he needs it to say and then say, 'It is what it is.'

I must say though that Tonys style is extremely effective. He has hooked me even now and I see he is in control of many of the threads here at Tentmaker in the sense he has hooked a number of people. If I were of a more suspicious nature I would wonder what Tonys real agenda is. Now I am sounding like the accuser ain't I? Just want to be truthful here.

Tony, I don't want to make this about you but you have a way about you that concerns me and I know concerns others too. You have a way of giving in just in time to keep others going with you and then you seem to have a way to annoy the heck out of a lot well meaning people. You have mastered the balance of just enough humility with a good dose of arrogance to keep people discussing things with you.

My huge concern is that I wonder if the aggravation and frustration I see you causing is outweighed by the good I see.

Just my outspoken opinions. I have been in your shoes. I like it here at TM but for some reason you kind of tick me off. Why? Its probably not you but it is my bad but there it is.

You and I are reading a very different Bible, Tony and I don't say this just because of some word differences or differences in intepretation. There is something adversarial in all of us but I am concerned about your adversarial nature. I am one nasty individual so I am not one to talk so take my comments for what they are worth to you.

cp

Yo CP :icon_flower:

Ya Know..we all can become easily entrapped in THINKING we can influence others to what we are seeing... for mine-Dont even Bother if ya think ya can.. :icon_flower:

Personally ones Grateful for Tonys input ,


ya Know, Is  Tony is  in control of any thread ?...thats Kinda a Funny CP,.. Dont ya think we all see from certain perspectives :icon_flower:


Dont ya think that we become narked when we feel threatened..Why on earth should we be peeved at anyone, what ever they think ?..theys where they are at....

wes where we are AT...BY that One doesnt mean division as IN us and THEM....as Im sure it caould be taken tat way

Hey Tony..thanks dude cause ya aided and strengthened many of ones Thoughts....NOT unlike yourself CP, or Nat and many others...

Of course that doesnt Inc Willie , hes Kinda of OLD, past it,well gone 120 Yrs... but kinda suvived in a NEW realm thou, where OLD musicians PLAY...ya ever see a Pic of Him...always SMOKING a PIPE of PEACE
:HeartThrob:

:happygrin: :icon_flower:

Quote from: Taffy on February 14, 2009, 03:33:40 AM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:33:53 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.

Molly, of course you are correct but Tony is playing his very effective game again. If cornered He turns to a rendering of the Scriptures that will use words or phrases that will say what he needs it to say and then say, 'It is what it is.'

I must say though that Tonys style is extremely effective. He has hooked me even now and I see he is in control of many of the threads here at Tentmaker in the sense he has hooked a number of people. If I were of a more suspicious nature I would wonder what Tonys real agenda is. Now I am sounding like the accuser ain't I? Just want to be truthful here.

Tony, I don't want to make this about you but you have a way about you that concerns me and I know concerns others too. You have a way of giving in just in time to keep others going with you and then you seem to have a way to annoy the heck out of a lot well meaning people. You have mastered the balance of just enough humility with a good dose of arrogance to keep people discussing things with you.

My huge concern is that I wonder if the aggravation and frustration I see you causing is outweighed by the good I see.

Just my outspoken opinions. I have been in your shoes. I like it here at TM but for some reason you kind of tick me off. Why? Its probably not you but it is my bad but there it is.

You and I are reading a very different Bible, Tony and I don't say this just because of some word differences or differences in intepretation. There is something adversarial in all of us but I am concerned about your adversarial nature. I am one nasty individual so I am not one to talk so take my comments for what they are worth to you.

cp

Yo CP :icon_flower:

Ya Know..we all can become easily entrapped in THINKING we can influence others to what we are seeing... for mine-Dont even Bother if ya think ya can.. :icon_flower:

Personally ones Grateful for Tonys input ,


ya Know, Is  Tony is  in control of any thread ?...thats Kinda a Funny CP,.. Dont ya think we all see from certain perspectives :icon_flower:


Dont ya think that we become narked when we feel threatened..Why on earth should we be peeved at anyone, what ever they think ?..theys where they are at....

wes where we are AT...BY that One doesnt mean division as IN us and THEM....as Im sure it caould be taken tat way

Hey Tony..thanks dude cause ya aided and strengthened many of ones Thoughts....NOT unlike yourself CP, or Nat and many others...

Of course that doesnt Inc Willie , hes Kinda of OLD, past it,well gone 120 Yrs... but kinda suvived in a NEW realm thou, where OLD musicians PLAY...ya ever see a Pic of Him...always SMOKING a PIPE of PEACE
:HeartThrob:

:happygrin: :icon_flower:

Hi Taf, I hear ya and I'm probably very wrong about Tony but something in me says something is very wrong but I will leave judgement to the One who judges rightly and to you and the other moderators as I should. I have never felt such a feeling in my very bones before towards anyone so I felt it was and is my duty before God to say something. I have said it and will rest from it.

This forum is important to me as it feels like family, yes even Tony and even Willie, especially Willie in some ways.

Forgive me if I crossed over any forbidden lines but let me say my guard is up and I still suspect something weird is going on.

Thanks again for caring.

PS I do think we influence each others thinking. You and Nathan, Willie, Pneuma, Craig and a host of others have greatly influenced my thinking and I will thank God till the day I die and longer for you all doing just that.

cp

wow!  Sheila! :HeartThrob:  :gangel:

Quote from: claypot on February 14, 2009, 03:45:35 AM

Quote from: Taffy on February 14, 2009, 03:33:40 AM

Quote from: claypot on February 13, 2009, 10:33:53 PM

Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 10:17:32 PM

Quote from: TonyWhat Bible says He walked through a physical literal solid wall?

I thought the Bible implied it since it goes to the trouble of telling us they are together inside a room with a locked door and Jesus appears to them--is suddenly there.

Molly, of course you are correct but Tony is playing his very effective game again. If cornered He turns to a rendering of the Scriptures that will use words or phrases that will say what he needs it to say and then say, 'It is what it is.'

I must say though that Tonys style is extremely effective. He has hooked me even now and I see he is in control of many of the threads here at Tentmaker in the sense he has hooked a number of people. If I were of a more suspicious nature I would wonder what Tonys real agenda is. Now I am sounding like the accuser ain't I? Just want to be truthful here.

Tony, I don't want to make this about you but you have a way about you that concerns me and I know concerns others too. You have a way of giving in just in time to keep others going with you and then you seem to have a way to annoy the heck out of a lot well meaning people. You have mastered the balance of just enough humility with a good dose of arrogance to keep people discussing things with you.

My huge concern is that I wonder if the aggravation and frustration I see you causing is outweighed by the good I see.

Just my outspoken opinions. I have been in your shoes. I like it here at TM but for some reason you kind of tick me off. Why? Its probably not you but it is my bad but there it is.

You and I are reading a very different Bible, Tony and I don't say this just because of some word differences or differences in intepretation. There is something adversarial in all of us but I am concerned about your adversarial nature. I am one nasty individual so I am not one to talk so take my comments for what they are worth to you.

cp

Yo CP :icon_flower:

Ya Know..we all can become easily entrapped in THINKING we can influence others to what we are seeing... for mine-Dont even Bother if ya think ya can.. :icon_flower:

Personally ones Grateful for Tonys input ,


ya Know, Is  Tony is  in control of any thread ?...thats Kinda a Funny CP,.. Dont ya think we all see from certain perspectives :icon_flower:


Dont ya think that we become narked when we feel threatened..Why on earth should we be peeved at anyone, what ever they think ?..theys where they are at....

wes where we are AT...BY that One doesnt mean division as IN us and THEM....as Im sure it caould be taken tat way

Hey Tony..thanks dude cause ya aided and strengthened many of ones Thoughts....NOT unlike yourself CP, or Nat and many others...

Of course that doesnt Inc Willie , hes Kinda of OLD, past it,well gone 120 Yrs... but kinda suvived in a NEW realm thou, where OLD musicians PLAY...ya ever see a Pic of Him...always SMOKING a PIPE of PEACE
:HeartThrob:

:happygrin: :icon_flower:

Hi Taf, I hear ya and I'm probably very wrong about Tony but something in me says something is very wrong but I will leave judgement to the One who judges rightly and to you and the other moderators as I should. I have never felt such a feeling in my very bones before towards anyone so I felt it was and is my duty before God to say something. I have said it and will rest from it.

This forum is important to me as it feels like family, yes even Tony and even Willie, especially Willie in some ways.

Forgive me if I crossed over any forbidden lines but let me say my guard is up and I still suspect something weird is going on.

Thanks again for caring.

PS I do think we influence each others thinking. You and Nathan, Willie, Pneuma, Craig and a host of others have greatly influenced my thinking and I will thank God till the day I die and longer for you all doing just that.

cp

Hey Bro :icon_flower:
My post was No way intended to say what is what is  brud...For mine I was speaking like yourself..another poster ..so for sure No apologies are needed Matey :icon_flower:

All I was trying to say was lets Post and allow others to glean what they are led to be able too...and if at all possible let HIS word speak to our heart without the need to force feed somewhat bro...

And for sure I glean from all who post ...either way bro... :icon_flower:



One  must admit..Ive not known Tent be LESS confrontational than its been these last few months...Very little moderating is needed Bro.....

so no worries Matey..youve not been offensive and Im sure Tony wont see it that way..as he to speaks from His heart :icon_flower:

Quote from: Taffy on February 14, 2009, 02:24:27 AM
Blessed be those with the  *LIGHT* of Knowledge Brud!  :icon_flower: , which are NOT confined by the WALLS of MEN :icon_flower:

Indeed, a man is accepted for what he believes  :BangHead:  but is rejected for what he knows  :yes:

"Faith is not believing that God can, it's knowing that He will."  :boogie:

peacemaker

 :cloud9: Thanks Sheila.... :girlheart:

Quote from: Taffy on February 14, 2009, 03:57:10 AM
One  must admit..Ive not known Tent be LESS confrontational than its been these last few months...Very little moderating is needed Bro.....

Hmmm, I guess I'm gonna have to try to change that Taffy. You've been getting a little lazy at that Ban button so I'll try to get you a little more exercise. Or is that exorcise?

Really, though, everyone needs to kick back and take a deep breath. We are all family.

I come from a family of three sets of twins (I'm one of them and we were born on my sister's birthday) and with mom and dad included a total of 15. We fought allot but every day we would all eat at the same table in peace.

Just because I disagree with some beliefs here does not mean I think those who hold those beliefs are better than me.  :laughing7:

Anyway, all will be made known when we finally meet our Lord face to face. Until then, we just muddle through it.

15???  :mshock: :mshock:   :swordfight: :Shoot: :robinhood:

Tony, I bet you have had to fight your whole life?  I also bet you have had a wonderful life filled with love?  I just love big families.  :HeartThrob: I love the movie titled "Yours Mine and Ours".

Tony, just wanted you to know I have enjoyed your posts and everyone elses as well. who says everyone has to agree with everyone? As long as everyone is civil to each other I think it is good to hear another side of things. I don't post much but I do read a lot. A lot of times I can't even get on here.

CHB

Quote from: Tony N on February 14, 2009, 03:05:45 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 14, 2009, 03:57:10 AM
One  must admit..Ive not known Tent be LESS confrontational than its been these last few months...Very little moderating is needed Bro.....

Hmmm, I guess I'm gonna have to try to change that Taffy. You've been getting a little lazy at that Ban button so I'll try to get you a little more exercise. Or is that exorcise?

Really, though, everyone needs to kick back and take a deep breath. We are all family.

I come from a family of three sets of twins (I'm one of them and we were born on my sister's birthday) and with mom and dad included a total of 15. We fought allot but every day we would all eat at the same table in peace.

Just because I disagree with some beliefs here does not mean I think those who hold those beliefs are better than me.  :laughing7:

Anyway, all will be made known when we finally meet our Lord face to face. Until then, we just muddle through it.

I hear ya Tony and am humbled.

cp

Some people muddle through waiting for understanding, try not to confuse yourself with syncretism: the merging of two or more originally different inflectional forms, or points; "Heaven and Hell."

One is death, and the other is the power of life, or a turning point!  :OhNo:

"Life is not measured in the breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

peacemaker

Quote from: Tony N on February 14, 2009, 03:05:45 PM

Quote from: Taffy on February 14, 2009, 03:57:10 AM
One  must admit..Ive not known Tent be LESS confrontational than its been these last few months...Very little moderating is needed Bro.....

Hmmm, I guess I'm gonna have to try to change that Taffy. You've been getting a little lazy at that Ban button so I'll try to get you a little more exercise. Or is that exorcise?

Really, though, everyone needs to kick back and take a deep breath. We are all family.

I come from a family of three sets of twins (I'm one of them and we were born on my sister's birthday) and with mom and dad included a total of 15. We fought allot but every day we would all eat at the same table in peace.

Just because I disagree with some beliefs here does not mean I think those who hold those beliefs are better than me.  :laughing7:

Anyway, all will be made known when we finally meet our Lord face to face. Until then, we just muddle through it.

That BAN button is a sticky key..kinda difficult to push

Gee Shucks, brother of MANY, LIKEWISE ,why on EARTH would OTHERS even consider others beliefs better than yours mucker...( Tis a Welsh Term , for fellow man)...

Youve added much to the Forum Bro... :icon_flower:

:icon_flower:

Philippians 3:10-16, 20-21 (CLV) . . .

". . .to know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, conforming to His death, if somehow I should be attaining to the resurrection that is out from among the dead.  Not that I already obtained, or am already perfected.  Yet I am pursuing, if I may be grasping also that for which I was grasped also by Christ Jesus.  Brethren, not as yet am I reckoning myself to have grasped, yet one thing -- forgetting, indeed, those things which are behind, yet stretching out to those in front -- toward the goal am I pursuing for the prize of God's calling above in Christ Jesus.  Whoever, then, are mature, may be disposed to this, and if in anything you are differently disposed, this also shall God reveal to you.  Moreover, in what we outstrip others, there is to be a mutual disposition to be observing the elements by the same rule.

Become imitators together of me, brethren, and be noting those who are walking thus, according as you have us for a model . . . our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Saviour also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him even to subject all to Himself."

Certain things in God are so near to those who draw near to Him.  Not that I've "grasped" freely expressing myself in the Divine nature; but, there are moments, like riding the merry-go-round and feeling the ring with a brief glancing touch, yet not actually "grasping" the ring.  "Pursuing for the prize" is not bare grace without works.  A prize is not a gift.  To qualify for the prize you must meet the specified conditions.  To respond to this by sinking under legalism is a trap for the immature, not understanding the ways of the Lord.  "So foolish are you? Undertaking (beginning) in spirit, are you now being completed in flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)

In Him we're already there.  That's how it seems when He "takes" me and I find I'm in a revelation of Himself.  I'm there and He indwells; or, is it the other way around?  I know those times experiencing no longer being bound in Adam's identity, but released into other realms through the operation of the Spirit of God.  The means into that is not something easily described, the "how to" of God.  Yet, for faith to rise the word must be sown in the hearing ear. You are, ". . . the mortal [that must] put on the immortal." (1 Corinthians 15:53)

Before that portion of the passage quoted at the first, Paul speaks of, ". . . the knowledge of Christ Jesus . . . of, "gaining Christ," and being, ". . . found in Him," ". . . to know Him."

Philippians 3:8-11 (CLV) . . .
"But, to be sure, I am also deeming all to be a forfeit because of the superiority of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, because of Whom I forfeited all, and am deeming it to be refuse, that I should be gaining Christ, and may be found in Him, not having my righteousness, which is of law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is from God for faith:  to know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, conforming to His death, if somehow I should be attaining to the resurrection that is out from among the dead."


your brother, James Rohde

Quote from: reFORMer on February 15, 2009, 04:53:36 AM
  A prize is not a gift.  To qualify for the prize you must meet the specified conditions. 

:cloud9: Wow. That just took my breath away, I never saw that before, but there it is, plain as day. Thanks!  :thumbsup:

QuoteThere 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.

Hi Nathan, I did wonder if it might just be the way we each express ourselves, tis good to know that we are in agreement.

Quote from: Taffy on February 13, 2009, 09:56:27 PM

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 09:19:04 PM

QuoteYou 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 :icon_flower:

Now Scott....MOD HAT ON!!!! :icon_flower:

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  :laughing7:   rolf!    :icon_king:

:icon_joker:

a  :icon_flower: child you are  :laughing7:

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:20:31 PM

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 09:07:25 PM

QuoteNathan, 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.

Hi pneuma, I think this is what I was replying about which you wrote earlier:

QuoteAnd 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.

How is His flesh different than ours?

Of course I don't believe He had death operating in His flesh like we do. If His flesh is different are His bones different too?

Hi Tony your problem bro is that you don't realsie His flesh and blood is NOT talking about literal flesh and blood, its talking about His LIFE, until you can descern this you will alway be in disagreement with those who can.

its not worth making an arguement over though bro, go with God as He will reveal things to whom He will in His time.

Quote from: pneuma on February 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 13, 2009, 10:20:31 PM

Quote from: pneuma on February 13, 2009, 09:07:25 PM

QuoteNathan, 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.

Hi pneuma, I think this is what I was replying about which you wrote earlier:

QuoteAnd 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.

How is His flesh different than ours?

Of course I don't believe He had death operating in His flesh like we do. If His flesh is different are His bones different too?

Hi Tony your problem bro is that you don't realsie His flesh and blood is NOT talking about literal flesh and blood, its talking about His LIFE, until you can descern this you will alway be in disagreement with those who can.

its not worth making an arguement over though bro, go with God as He will reveal things to whom He will in His time.

Hi pneuma you problem bro is that you don't realise His flesh and bones is talking about literal flesh and bones. Until you can discern this you will always be in disagreement with those who can.

It is worth making an argument over so go with God and He will reveal things to whom He will in His time as it accords with the Scriptures.

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

QuoteThere 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.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

There's absolute nothingness (whether real or an abstraction.)

There's nothing as a result of something removed, as weeds judged unfit to remain.

There's nothing as a precorsor of something, as removal of weeds that the intended plant may come forth.

Then there's the road to Emmaus, translated that means the road to (the longer form of) "I, me, my (-self)."  How do we get to who we ultimately must be if we don't know where we are going?  When Jesus was present with them they knew Him not; but, when He disappeared out of their sight, absenting Himself, then they knew Him in the breaking of the bread, which was creating a nothingness in something we are.  "...we, who are many, are one bread, one body, for we all are partaking of the one bread." (1 Co 10:17, CLV)  This is like His mother observed, "The hungry He fills with good things, And the rich He sends away empty." (Lk 1:53)  The empty is filled, the full empty.  He was absent when present and present in absence.  This is nothing when something that is something when nothing.

This is Divine nature, physically true of those that happen upon the resurrection from the dead.  This is introduced into us by the vivification of our fallen into mortality spirit.  Angels can close our eye of understanding when present with us that we cannot recognize them until they have gone.

That Jesus showed the disciples evidence of the wounds He suffered is because they belonged to Him.  In those days He appeared not to the world or Israel, but to those He chooses.  In ascension He appears in whatever form He chooses.  To whom He will, how He will:  This He still does.  He has come to us a Spirit to cohabit our body with us.  His victory means the permanentizing of the physical realm.  Yet, in that realm, the cosmos is said to eventually be folded up like a worn out garment for a keepsake.  Having a immortal body means it can descend into expression in the physical realm.  Ascension means He can appear (or not) in whatever form He will.


your brother, James Rohde

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 02:31:23 AM
I think it might have been Nathan who said:

QuoteThere 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.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

Tony, I actually laughed out loud at this reply of yours. I gots to give you credit Bro, you stick to your guns!

Maybe Jesus was wearing a Halloween mask?

I did really like what you said when you wrote....It is worth making an argument over so go with God and He will reveal things to whom He will in His time as it accords with the Scriptures.

That's a gem I will try to hang on to. Thanks and I mean it Brother.

cp

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 02:31:23 AM
I think it might have been Nathan who said:

QuoteThere 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.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

Quote from: Tony N on February 08, 2009, 06:19:30 PM
Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

The orthodox answer, as I understand it, is that Moses and Elijah would have come up from the depths of the earth i.e. Sheol/Hades/Abraham's bosom, rather than having decended from Heaven. I base this on 1 Samuel 28:11-15
11Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
12When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul."
13The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
14He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe " And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
15Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

Also,

Matthew 22:32
32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

 :cloud9: Jews brought up out of a type of "purgatory", eh?  :girlheart:

Quote from: Brian on February 16, 2009, 07:46:55 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 08, 2009, 06:19:30 PM
Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

The orthodox answer, as I understand it, is that Moses and Elijah would have come up from the depths of the earth i.e. Sheol/Hades/Abraham's bosom, rather than having decended from Heaven. I base this on 1 Samuel 28:11-15
11Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
12When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul."
13The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
14He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe " And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
15Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

Also,

Matthew 22:32
32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

It wasn't really Samuel she brought up but a familiar spirit.

Also, Matthew 22:32 is concerning the resurrection of the dead and how that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob must be resurrected (flesh, bones and blood).
Jesus said so Himself:

Mat 22:31 Now concerning the resurrection of the dead, did you not read that which is declared to you by God, saying,

Quote from: Nathan on February 16, 2009, 06:31:36 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 02:31:23 AM
I think it might have been Nathan who said:

QuoteThere 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.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

Nathan, I got to hand it to you, you win the rude award. Your attitude sure shows the spirit of Christ.  :thumbdown:

But let's get back to the good stuff. As I said it was getting dark on the road to Emmaus and most likely was not that well lit in the house where he went into. Why? You ever see those tiny oil lamps the Jews used to use? Very tiny. And so it was not till He broke the bread that they recognized Him.

Mary too was literally in the dark when she first met Jesus in the garden and had her back to Him. It was when He said "Miriam!" that she turned around and recognized Him.

Not only that but back then they used to wear hoods all the time.

Jesus had a gaping hole in His side for which Thomas could have put his hand into. Let's believe the Scriptures.

Nathan, please, for a witness to those who come here, lay off the rudeness a little, O.K.?

Quote from: claypot on February 16, 2009, 06:06:10 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 02:31:23 AM
I think it might have been Nathan who said:

QuoteThere 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.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

Tony, I actually laughed out loud at this reply of yours. I gots to give you credit Bro, you stick to your guns!

Maybe Jesus was wearing a Halloween mask?

I did really like what you said when you wrote....It is worth making an argument over so go with God and He will reveal things to whom He will in His time as it accords with the Scriptures.

That's a gem I will try to hang on to. Thanks and I mean it Brother.

cp

It must be the demon spirit of mockery coming out of you and Nathan attacking me today.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."
Joh 20:15 Jesus is saying to her, "Woman, why are you lamenting? Whom are you seeking?She, supposing that He is the gardener, is saying to Him, "Lord, if you bear Him off, tell me where you place Him, and I will take Him away."
Joh 20:16 Jesus is saying to her, "Miriam! Now, being turned, she is saying to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!"

Get thee behind me mocking spirit.

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 08:39:47 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 16, 2009, 06:31:36 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 02:31:23 AM
I think it might have been Nathan who said:

QuoteThere 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.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

Nathan, I got to hand it to you, you win the rude award. Your attitude sure shows the spirit of Christ.  :thumbdown:

But let's get back to the good stuff. As I said it was getting dark on the road to Emmaus and most likely was not that well lit in the house where he went into. Why? You ever see those tiny oil lamps the Jews used to use? Very tiny. And so it was not till He broke the bread that they recognized Him.

Mary too was literally in the dark when she first met Jesus in the garden and had her back to Him. It was when He said "Miriam!" that she turned around and recognized Him.

Not only that but back then they used to wear hoods all the time.

Jesus had a gaping hole in His side for which Thomas could have put his hand into. Let's believe the Scriptures.

Nathan, please, for a witness to those who come here, lay off the rudeness a little, O.K.?

Seriously Tony . . . There is absolutely no indication in Scripture AT ALL that they could not recognize Jesus because he was wearing  a hood . .because the light was low . .or any other reason your mind chooses to conjure up.  The reason they didn't recognize him had nothing to do with his physical state.  I'm irritated with your stubbornness to even consider that it's a spiritual recognition more than anything.  You're so tied to embracing a literal point . . .I don't apologize for the attitude . . .you want to present yourself as more knowledgable, yet your "sound" doctrine never holds water.  You skirt questions poised to prove your thinking to be slighted one way or another and yet you turn the tables to present me as the bad guy.

I'll accept it . . I've done nothing to mask my frustrations . . . I don't see you as less than I, but I do have a shorter leash with your arguments than I have with others.  If people read my previous posts . .they see that I am not a rude person, as you suggest.  But in every way, I attempt to keep Christ in the forefront . . .which your enforcement of physical over spiritual keeps trying to tear that part down.  You don't even agree that Christ is a spirit . . .he's everywhere all the time . .. but he's not a spirit.  . . you find the simplest comments and dissect the meaning of the words used, according to 'your' vocabulary, which derails the original intent of the message given . . .and now, because I've been a little sarcastic, you're inflating that into more than it is as well.

Even in this discussion, you are unwilling to see that Christ revealed himself to those OF HIS CHOOSING.  The idea that he is still in his mutilated state after the resurrection, a carcass with no blood, just mutilated flesh . . .still unrecognizable, but yet spent another 40 days on this earth in that so called mutilated state . . . and you then are bewildered that someone would be critical of that?

The entire purpose of Christ, was not to bring emphasis to the physical, but to enable us to enter into the spiritual.  It was not to come and enable us to just get by . . .but he came and anhilated . . .he made a show of . . . he conquerred the enemy . .the carnality, the flesh . . .that which he conquerred, you seem to keep trying to resurrect.  So no, I'm not going to roll over and leave that kind of thinking up to you.  I "am" going to push back a little.

As I've mentioned before . . .the UR perspective is not the totality of who Christ is.  It's just a thread of the whole truth of who he is.  Oddly enough, the UR piece seems to be the "only" aspect of Christ that you and I agree with.  The other thing seems to also be that even though I may not come across to you as perfect . . . there is a great Grace that sees me as perfected.  This is not to say I do whatever nasty thing I want to do and still claim purity within.  But it does allow me to keep my personality as I go through the process of maturity in Christ on this journey of life in the natural.

So that enables me to become passionate in areas where I have experienced revelational things in God that you attempt to denounce.  This argument about the hoods could go on and on . . .you make it look like Jesus was trying to hide himself . . .like he didn't want people to know he'd resurrected . . .that whole line of thought is against the very purpose of his Coming.  "That" was the very reason why he came . . .why on earth would he then throw a cloak over his body . . .to hide it?

You never answered questions like if he could literally replace the ear of a guy . . .if he could heal a withered hand . .if he could heal leporsy . . .but he couldn't heal his own flesh???  These questions would only prolong this argument and it's just not worth fighting over.  I believe whole heartedly, not because I've read the words and have come to a logical conclusion . .but because I can see in my spirit  . . . he revealed/reveals himself to those with whom he communes with . . .with those who he has a relationship with. 

It's as the word says .  . . it's a spirit-to-spirit communication of the resurrected life in a river of death that he manifests in.  Don't diminish that by telling me that he wore a hood over his face to hide the hideousness of his flesh.  He was a resurrected Christ in a glorified body.

Can I be any clearer with that?  Again, I'm not mad, I'm not looking for vengence and I see no need for any defence as to what I see . . nor am I interested in trying to win you over.  You will see what you will see, when it is "revealed" to you just like it is with anyone else.  And that's no my job.  You trust the spirit as you say, then I'll trust the spirit will reveal to you his light in time.

Quote from: Nathan on February 16, 2009, 10:58:08 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 08:39:47 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 16, 2009, 06:31:36 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 16, 2009, 02:31:23 AM
I think it might have been Nathan who said:

QuoteThere 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.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

Nathan, I got to hand it to you, you win the rude award. Your attitude sure shows the spirit of Christ.  :thumbdown:

But let's get back to the good stuff. As I said it was getting dark on the road to Emmaus and most likely was not that well lit in the house where he went into. Why? You ever see those tiny oil lamps the Jews used to use? Very tiny. And so it was not till He broke the bread that they recognized Him.

Mary too was literally in the dark when she first met Jesus in the garden and had her back to Him. It was when He said "Miriam!" that she turned around and recognized Him.

Not only that but back then they used to wear hoods all the time.

Jesus had a gaping hole in His side for which Thomas could have put his hand into. Let's believe the Scriptures.

Nathan, please, for a witness to those who come here, lay off the rudeness a little, O.K.?

Seriously Tony . . . There is absolutely no indication in Scripture AT ALL that they could not recognize Jesus because he was wearing  a hood . .because the light was low . .or any other reason your mind chooses to conjure up.  The reason they didn't recognize him had nothing to do with his physical state.  I'm irritated with your stubbornness to even consider that it's a spiritual recognition more than anything.  You're so tied to embracing a literal point . . .I don't apologize for the attitude . . .you want to present yourself as more knowledgable, yet your "sound" doctrine never holds water.  You skirt questions poised to prove your thinking to be slighted one way or another and yet you turn the tables to present me as the bad guy.

I'll accept it . . I've done nothing to mask my frustrations . . . I don't see you as less than I, but I do have a shorter leash with your arguments than I have with others.  If people read my previous posts . .they see that I am not a rude person, as you suggest.  But in every way, I attempt to keep Christ in the forefront . . .which your enforcement of physical over spiritual keeps trying to tear that part down.  You don't even agree that Christ is a spirit . . .he's everywhere all the time . .. but he's not a spirit.  . . you find the simplest comments and dissect the meaning of the words used, according to 'your' vocabulary, which derails the original intent of the message given . . .and now, because I've been a little sarcastic, you're inflating that into more than it is as well.

Even in this discussion, you are unwilling to see that Christ revealed himself to those OF HIS CHOOSING.  The idea that he is still in his mutilated state after the resurrection, a carcass with no blood, just mutilated flesh . . .still unrecognizable, but yet spent another 40 days on this earth in that so called mutilated state . . . and you then are bewildered that someone would be critical of that?

The entire purpose of Christ, was not to bring emphasis to the physical, but to enable us to enter into the spiritual.  It was not to come and enable us to just get by . . .but he came and anhilated . . .he made a show of . . . he conquerred the enemy . .the carnality, the flesh . . .that which he conquerred, you seem to keep trying to resurrect.  So no, I'm not going to roll over and leave that kind of thinking up to you.  I "am" going to push back a little.

As I've mentioned before . . .the UR perspective is not the totality of who Christ is.  It's just a thread of the whole truth of who he is.  Oddly enough, the UR piece seems to be the "only" aspect of Christ that you and I agree with.  The other thing seems to also be that even though I may not come across to you as perfect . . . there is a great Grace that sees me as perfected.  This is not to say I do whatever nasty thing I want to do and still claim purity within.  But it does allow me to keep my personality as I go through the process of maturity in Christ on this journey of life in the natural.

So that enables me to become passionate in areas where I have experienced revelational things in God that you attempt to denounce.  This argument about the hoods could go on and on . . .you make it look like Jesus was trying to hide himself . . .like he didn't want people to know he'd resurrected . . .that whole line of thought is against the very purpose of his Coming.  "That" was the very reason why he came . . .why on earth would he then throw a cloak over his body . . .to hide it?

You never answered questions like if he could literally replace the ear of a guy . . .if he could heal a withered hand . .if he could heal leporsy . . .but he couldn't heal his own flesh???  These questions would only prolong this argument and it's just not worth fighting over.  I believe whole heartedly, not because I've read the words and have come to a logical conclusion . .but because I can see in my spirit  . . . he revealed/reveals himself to those with whom he communes with . . .with those who he has a relationship with. 

It's as the word says .  . . it's a spirit-to-spirit communication of the resurrected life in a river of death that he manifests in.  Don't diminish that by telling me that he wore a hood over his face to hide the hideousness of his flesh.  He was a resurrected Christ in a glorified body.

Can I be any clearer with that?  Again, I'm not mad, I'm not looking for vengence and I see no need for any defence as to what I see . . nor am I interested in trying to win you over.  You will see what you will see, when it is "revealed" to you just like it is with anyone else.  And that's no my job.  You trust the spirit as you say, then I'll trust the spirit will reveal to you his light in time.

ever read a book, and it spoke to you in ways that words can't describe, an inner awakening.  And you were so excited you recommended it to a friend.  And after your friend read it, he/she got nothing from it?  And yet they might have watched a show, that God spoke to them through, and you watched it to, and felt nothing.   

maybe, just maybe; each of u (Nathan, etc and Tony) are trying to convince the other of a "spiritual" truth that they have been revealed.  In other words, what one may see as "literal" in another might be a spiriutal revelation for that person; and likewise, and vice versa. 

God speaks to each of us inwardly does he not? 


if one's belief creates inner peace and joy, is that not of the Spirit? 

just some thoughts. 

Quote from: Nathan on February 16, 2009, 10:58:08 PM

Nathan falsely accused me:

Quote. . .you want to present yourself as more knowledgable, yet your "sound" doctrine never holds water.

Nathan, not only are you rude but you are a false accuser of the brethren. Just because I share my thoughts with people on these boards does not in any way mean I am trying to present myself as more knowledgeable than anyone else. Just because the Scriptural truths totally slam your ideas does not mean you have to character assassinate the messenger.

QuoteYou never answered questions like if he could literally replace the ear of a guy . . .if he could heal a withered hand . .if he could heal leporsy . . .but he couldn't heal his own flesh???  These questions would only prolong this argument and it's just not worth fighting over.  I believe whole heartedly, not because I've read the words and have come to a logical conclusion . .but because I can see in my spirit  . . . he revealed/reveals himself to those with whom he communes with . . .with those who he has a relationship with. 

I did answer you, maybe not to your liking but I did. I said all we know is that He had gaping holes in his hands one could put their finger in and a gaping hole in His side one could put their hand in. (end of original answer).

We are not told why He never healed up His wounds. Why should He heal them? They are a witness to mankind, to angels, to His Father and to the denizens among the celestials of what He went through in obedience to God and His love for all.

Are we close to everybody having said what is beneficial in this thread?  Maybe someone could get us back to the original OP with an interesting thought or question.

Anything need to go to PM at this point?

I see something here that I think is a shame.  The two main principals in these tug 'o wars, IMO, have a lot to add to the body and ministry here.  But I think the arguing gets tedious, and the possible benefits are hindered.  I like this line from Zeek;  "maybe, just maybe; each of u (Nathan, etc and Tony) are trying to convince the other of a "spiritual" truth that they have been revealed.  In other words, what one may see as "literal" in another might be a spiriutal revelation for that person; and likewise, and vice versa."

If we could just share more (instead of argue, and at least appear that the other needs to be convinced by our arguments) we'd probably all benefit more.  Getting back to the "in my opinion/as I see it/as I understand", etc., and then let God move us all where we need to go...

My thoughts and suggestions.  You both have shared really great things, but too often the trees get lost in the forest.  My  :2c:.

James. 

Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2009, 08:30:41 PM
Due to piecemeal research, I've come across the following:

In the first six schools of Christian theology, ET was only taught in the one in Rome.
So, ET is basically an RC invention.

However, then I heard that John Paul II said you don't have to believe in the RC church or even Jesus Christ to be saved. You're saved by adhering to the Beatitudes.

Then recently my pastor who was raised a Catholic, reminisced about how priests would tell him everyone will eventually get to heaven (quoted in a sarcastic tone).
Before that I heard him saying in the same tone how he'd hear, you better keep up with your confessions or you might die with an un-confessed mortal sin (which I took as meaning having to maintain salvation)

So, I'm wondering off hand, what's the deal?

Also, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

Looks like we strayed just a tad from Brians original questions which I have not a clue on. The above is the first post in this thread.

cp

Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2009, 08:30:41 PM
... when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

The Hebrew texts were in reference to "Sheol" and the purgatorial interpretation is not found, unless you include the book(s) of Maccabees. However, combine this with the Pagan underworld, and you have PURGATORY – an idea that was adopted by the Jews from the Egyptians, etc.

Although, there are those who see this, as the mercy of God?

peacemaker

 :cloud9: Since all doctrinal errors are mimicry of something that God has established, which is why there is nothing new under the sun, what then would the pagan underworld being trying to mimic? Sometimes looking at things in reverse can reveal a truth, or at least the existence of it, even if that truth is not generally known. Blessings....

It seems to understand tartarus (hapax legomeni) one must go to the world of Greek speakers contemporaneous with the N.T.

Quote from: Tony N link=topic=4810.msg51773#msg51773
It wasn't really Samuel she brought up but a familiar spirit.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Quote
Also, Matthew 22:32 is concerning the resurrection of the dead and how that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob must be resurrected (flesh, bones and blood).
Jesus said so Himself:

Which translation did you get that verse from?

Samuel wouldn't defy God's command to do for what His Law prescribed a death sentence.

Quote from: Tony N on February 17, 2009, 02:13:11 AM

Quote from: Nathan on February 16, 2009, 10:58:08 PM

Nathan falsely accused me:

Quote. . .you want to present yourself as more knowledgable, yet your "sound" doctrine never holds water.

Nathan, not only are you rude but you are a false accuser of the brethren. Just because I share my thoughts with people on these boards does not in any way mean I am trying to present myself as more knowledgeable than anyone else.

Tony, you seem to me personally to have an aswer for everything to fit your viewpoit, no matter how many hoops and rabbit trails it takes to get there, and it seems a destination is often never actually reached. The more I read your matertial, the more inclined I am to disregard what you have to say.

Suggested reading for this discussion group: 2 Peter 2

Quote from: Taffy on February 15, 2009, 02:29:55 AM
That BAN button is a sticky key..kinda difficult to push

Then get some WD-40.

Actually . . . I'm kinda glad it was sticky this time . . .I really thought I would come in today and find myself among the ousted. 

I guess I need to take this question elsewhere. Because there's no way I'm reading through 180 posts to separate the wheat from the chaff. :laughing7:

Does anyone know if there's a way to block a certain poster from replying to / hijacking your thread?

Some advice to the spiritually younger Christians in this discussion group.
Get a firm orthodox foundation in your learning first. Teaching that is as fundamentally Scriptural as possible first, before going off on ventures, lest you be as a result, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (Ephesians 4:14)
And if I might add; plain unscriptural invented and or delusional hogwash.
Learn the basics first and learn them well.
If there's a particular doctrine, like ET or UR, that the Holy Spirit wants to enlighten you on, a sound solid foundation will not detour you from that.
But it will allow Him to better enlighten you on what's made by God, and what's made up by man. Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote from: Nathan on February 17, 2009, 09:08:18 PM
Actually . . . I'm kinda glad it was sticky this time . . .I really thought I would come in today and find myself among the ousted. 

Why is that? In other words, I'm asking you to critique why you made that statement.

Quote from: Brian on February 17, 2009, 09:08:46 PM
I guess I need to take this question elsewhere. Because there's no way I'm reading through 180 posts to separate the wheat from the chaff. :laughing7:

Does anyone know if there's a way to block a certain poster from replying to / hijacking your thread?

Some advice to the spiritually younger Christians in this discussion group.
Get a firm orthodox foundation in your learning first. Teaching that is as fundamentally Scriptural as possible first, before going off on ventures, lest you be as a result, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (Ephesians 4:14)
And if I might add; plain unscriptural invented and or delusional hogwash.
Learn the basics first and learn them well.
If there's a particular doctrine, like ET or UR, that the Holy Spirit wants to enlighten you on, a sound solid foundation will not detour you from that.
But it will allow Him to better enlighten you on what's made by God, and what's made up by man. Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Aaaaaaaaaman brother!

Quote from: Brian on February 17, 2009, 09:27:50 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 17, 2009, 09:08:18 PM
Actually . . . I'm kinda glad it was sticky this time . . .I really thought I would come in today and find myself among the ousted. 

Why is that? In other words, I'm asking you to critique why you made that statement.

Go back and read reply #168 . . .it's on page 7 of this thread . . .it kinda speaks for itself.

Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2009, 08:30:41 PM
Due to piecemeal research, I've come across the following:

In the first six schools of Christian theology, ET was only taught in the one in Rome.
So, ET is basically an RC invention.

However, then I heard that John Paul II said you don't have to believe in the RC church or even Jesus Christ to be saved. You're saved by adhering to the Beatitudes.

Then recently my pastor who was raised a Catholic, reminisced about how priests would tell him everyone will eventually get to heaven (quoted in a sarcastic tone).
Before that I heard him saying in the same tone how he'd hear, you better keep up with your confessions or you might die with an un-confessed mortal sin (which I took as meaning having to maintain salvation)

So, I'm wondering off hand, what's the deal?

Also, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

Brian, what is it that you are asking? I mean 'What's the deal?' is not an easy question to answer. As to purgatory being originally taught in BC Judaism, what will it mean to you if the answer is yes or if the answer is no?

cp

Quote from: claypot on February 17, 2009, 10:01:04 PM

Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2009, 08:30:41 PM
Due to piecemeal research, I've come across the following:

In the first six schools of Christian theology, ET was only taught in the one in Rome.
So, ET is basically an RC invention.

However, then I heard that John Paul II said you don't have to believe in the RC church or even Jesus Christ to be saved. You're saved by adhering to the Beatitudes.

Then recently my pastor who was raised a Catholic, reminisced about how priests would tell him everyone will eventually get to heaven (quoted in a sarcastic tone).
Before that I heard him saying in the same tone how he'd hear, you better keep up with your confessions or you might die with an un-confessed mortal sin (which I took as meaning having to maintain salvation)

So, I'm wondering off hand, what's the deal?

Also, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

Brian, what is it that you are asking? I mean 'What's the deal?' is not an easy question to answer. As to purgatory being originally taught in BC Judaism, what will it mean to you if the answer is yes or if the answer is no?

cp

]

I'm not asking for easy answers CP - nor made up ones. If someone doesn't know the answer to a question, then they shouldn't attempt to provide one should they?
This was merely a musing on my part. On one hand I've heard from Catholics (or former Catholics) including quotes from Popes, that if you're not a Catholic and do not submit to their traditions, you're going to Hell i.e. eternal torment.
On the other hand I've heard from Catholics (or former Catholics) including quotes from Popes, that if you're not a Catholic and do not submit to their traditions, you're still going to Heaven. It's a dichotomy. It seems substantially inconsistent.
As to the second part of my question, based on what I've read regarding the Judaic concept of Hell, it is purgatorial. In other words, intended to purge, and temporary. Mind you, I haven't done any serious study into this. And, I'm referring to original pre-Talmud Judaic theology regarding "Hell".

Quote from: Tony N on February 17, 2009, 09:52:28 PM
Aaaaaaaaaman brother!

You're a real piece of work, brother.

Quote from: Brian on February 17, 2009, 11:31:52 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 17, 2009, 10:01:04 PM

Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2009, 08:30:41 PM
Due to piecemeal research, I've come across the following:

In the first six schools of Christian theology, ET was only taught in the one in Rome.
So, ET is basically an RC invention.

However, then I heard that John Paul II said you don't have to believe in the RC church or even Jesus Christ to be saved. You're saved by adhering to the Beatitudes.

Then recently my pastor who was raised a Catholic, reminisced about how priests would tell him everyone will eventually get to heaven (quoted in a sarcastic tone).
Before that I heard him saying in the same tone how he'd hear, you better keep up with your confessions or you might die with an un-confessed mortal sin (which I took as meaning having to maintain salvation)

So, I'm wondering off hand, what's the deal?

Also, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

Brian, what is it that you are asking? I mean 'What's the deal?' is not an easy question to answer. As to purgatory being originally taught in BC Judaism, what will it mean to you if the answer is yes or if the answer is no?

cp

]

I'm not asking for easy answers CP - nor made up ones. If someone doesn't know the answer to a question, then they shouldn't attempt to provide one should they?
This was merely a musing on my part. On one hand I've heard from Catholics (or former Catholics) including quotes from Popes, that if you're not a Catholic and do not submit to their traditions, you're going to Hell i.e. eternal torment.
On the other hand I've heard from Catholics (or former Catholics) including quotes from Popes, that if you're not a Catholic and do not submit to their traditions, you're still going to Heaven. It's a dichotomy. It seems substantially inconsistent.
As to the second part of my question, based on what I've read regarding the Judaic concept of Hell, it is purgatorial. In other words, intended to purge, and temporary. Mind you, I haven't done any serious study into this. And, I'm referring to original pre-Talmud Judaic theology regarding "Hell".

I'm not very familiar with early Judaic (Hebraic) theology, but my understanding is that they didn't know anything of "hell", only sheol.
I think I remember reading that by the time of the NT Pharisees, they had developed a doctrine that was essentially endless hell for some. Seems like they borrowed this idea from paganism though.

 :cloud9: The Jews believe in a purgatory that they call Sheol. They, to this day, pray a Mourner's Kaddish for a person up to one year after their departure, because they believe that God chastises for only that long, and view it not as the "Christian" hell, but as a time of God bringing repentance and correction. Psalm 16, where David says that the Lord will not LEAVE HIS soul (not Messiah's) in hell (Sheol) is also quoted at this time, for that reason. Just because the translators translated it as hell, does not mean it was the Jewish understanding of what that word there, which is Sheol, means.

IMO from what God has shown me personally, a great disservice was done to the original church when the Gentile nations who knew nothing of Jewish understanding of the scriptures that THEY had been given, and been taught by Moses to understand, began to alter things to suit themselves and their own lack of understanding. The gentiles were grafted into them, not the other way around. Constantine being an anti-semite did not help.

For this reason, they lost the foundational understandings that make it impossible to fully understand the new covenant, including the tabernacle for the most part, even though Heb. 10 tells us it's the pattern of the things in the heavenlies. And; for instance, how many churches did you ever hear preach that the "Last Supper" was actually a type of Passover Seder? Or that the "great feast" Jesus went in unawares of the disciples, was the feast of Tabernacles? This would be clear to a Jewish reader, but not to a gentile. So how many more things were missed? Blessings....

Quote from: peacemaker on February 17, 2009, 06:38:21 AM

Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2009, 08:30:41 PM
... when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

The Hebrew texts were in reference to "Sheol" and the purgatorial interpretation is not found, unless you include the book(s) of Maccabees. However, combine this with the Pagan underworld, and you have PURGATORY – an idea that was adopted by the Jews from the Egyptians, etc.

Although, there are those who see this, as the mercy of God?

peacemaker

An act of contemplating, or a thoughtful religious observation.

peacemaker

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

--John17

1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

--Rom 14

Molly, I can understand their aggravation. It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow when someone like me comes along and presents ideas counter to what Nathan, Brian and cp have held.

So rather than change, they change the focus from where their theology is wrong to focusing on the messenger, me.

So rather than them seeing anything wrong on their end, they go so low as to accuse me of all manner of evil in the hopes that this refocusing on me will deflect away from them and their defects.

Hey, they did it to Jesus when He brought to light all the bad theology of the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. And look what they did to Him. First, to deflect attention away from themselves they accuse Him of having a demon, being a drunkard and one who eats with sinners and born illegitamately. When that deflection didn't work they crucified Him.

I see these people are not repenting of this abuse of me so I must *sigh* give them over to God and let Him deal with them.

May He be merciful to them in that day.

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 07:05:26 PM
Molly, I can understand their aggravation. It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow when someone like me comes along and presents ideas counter to what Nathan, Brian and cp have held.

So rather than change, they change the focus to where their theology is wrong to focusing on the messenger, me.

So rather than them seeing anything wrong on their end, they go so low as to accuse me of all manner of evil in the hopes that this refocusing on me will deflect away from them and their defects.

Hey, they did it to Jesus when He brought to light all the bad theology of the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. And look what they did to Him. First, to deflect attention away from themselves they accuse Him of having a demon, being a drunkard and one who eats with sinners and born illegitamately. When that deflection didn't work they crucified Him.

I see these people are not repenting of this abuse of me so I must *sigh* give them over to God and let Him deal with them.

May He be mercifyl to them in that day.

Tony, this is not the place to deal with our frustrations with each other but it did start out on these forums so I wanted to say a few words concerning it for those who will read and learn how things like this can be dealt with. I am definitely not one to throw stones and I sure don't have enough evidence to judge anyone but I put some hard words out in order to see God would do with them. I only want to see any ungodly characteristics within me, you and all people disappear.

Maybe we should start another thread on how to deal with these things. I just don't think God would have us ignore wrong if we think something is wrong but I know He does not want us condemning others who we just disagree with.

I am not in fear of my beliefs being shattered to the point where I must destroy any messenger that opposes me. I know myself far too well to think I have all knowledge.

I guess it will take more looking into. I am glad there are moderators here to watch out for us as best they can.

Maybe it's just your style that is irritating to me as maybe mine is to you. If so, so be it and I must grow into more maturity and deal with it. I think I will start a new thread and see what I can learn...

cp

cp, your postings don't irritate me. What does is when you join in the character assasination of me.

Don't worry, I've already allerted the mods for this board about this matter.

What is sad is neither you nor Nathan nor Brian see they have done any wrong in this matter.

You say you are not one to throw stones yet you did. Please cp don't try to come across as holier than thou in this matter. Just repent of this abuse.

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 07:28:29 PM
cp, your postings don't irritate me. What does is when you join in the character assasination of me.

Don't worry, I've already allerted the mods for these board about this matter.

What is sad is neither you nor Nathan nor Brian see they have done any wrong in this matter.

You say you are not one to throw stones yet you did. Please cp don't try to come across as holier than thou in this matter. Just repent of this abuse.

Because I see this as a great lesson possibility in all manner of ways I have started a new thread to learn.

I have confessed to what I think was wrong on my part. Do you see any wrong on your part in any of this?

I will not repent anymore than I have as I just don't know what to repent of but thanks for the advice.

Let's continue learning from God via the other thread so as to not take away from the subject matter here.

cp

Quote from: claypot on February 18, 2009, 07:34:13 PM
I will not repent anymore than I have as I just don't know what to repent of but thanks for the advice.
cp

I didn't see where you repented at all of your illicit abuse towards me. Maybe I missed it but I read through the posts and couldn't find it. Just curious, that's all.

And no, I'm not baiting, not trolling, not being sarcastic, not being mean or nasty or whatever else you folks want to heap upon me.

Then let it go man, if we are guilty of the charge and are not repenting, you should rejoice rather than demand closure.  God is the one that brings the rewards . . .just let it go.

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 08:47:28 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 18, 2009, 07:34:13 PM
I will not repent anymore than I have as I just don't know what to repent of but thanks for the advice.
cp

I didn't see where you repented at all of your illicit abuse towards me. Maybe I missed it but I read through the posts and couldn't find it. Just curious, that's all.

And no, I'm not baiting, not trolling, not being sarcastic, not being mean or nasty or whatever else you folks want to heap upon me.

GUMP!

But let by gones be bygones and start again :icon_flower:

Quote from: Nathan on February 18, 2009, 08:54:06 PM
Then let it go man, if we are guilty of the charge and are not repenting, you should rejoice rather than demand closure.  God is the one that brings the rewards . . .just let it go.

Paul says
2Cor. 12:21 Not again at my coming will my God be humbling me toward you, and I shall be mourning for many who have sinned before and are not repenting of the uncleanness and prostitution and wantonness which they commit."

I just want this for you, Brian and anyone else who character assasinated me so you don't have to go through grief, which you will go through.

I didn't get much sleep last night due to bringing this before God.

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 08:59:27 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 18, 2009, 08:54:06 PM
Then let it go man, if we are guilty of the charge and are not repenting, you should rejoice rather than demand closure.  God is the one that brings the rewards . . .just let it go.

Paul says
2Cor. 12:21 Not again at my coming will my God be humbling me toward you, and I shall be mourning for many who have sinned before and are not repenting of the uncleanness and prostitution and wantonness which they commit."

I just want this for you, Brian and anyone else who character assasinated me so you don't have to go through grief, which you will go through.

I didn't get much sleep last night due to bringing this before God.

If a person is spending time with God verses sleeping it is a very good thing in my book.

cp

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 08:59:27 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 18, 2009, 08:54:06 PM
Then let it go man, if we are guilty of the charge and are not repenting, you should rejoice rather than demand closure.  God is the one that brings the rewards . . .just let it go.

Paul says
2Cor. 12:21 Not again at my coming will my God be humbling me toward you, and I shall be mourning for many who have sinned before and are not repenting of the uncleanness and prostitution and wantonness which they commit."

I just want this for you, Brian and anyone else who character assassinated me so you don't have to go through grief, which you will go through.

I didn't get much sleep last night due to bringing this before God.

Well, for what it's worth, I do have the flu and was running a fever last night. But I do think Tony it's okay for two or three brothers to offer correction, constructive criticism, point out that what they hearing is causing them concern, expressing that concern and so forth. Without it having to take on dramatic reactions such as those brothers being in league with Satan, and calling upon the Lord to avenge you by punishing them. If you feel a brother, any brother, is off track, out of line, acting strange, being aloof, evasive, whatever. Should you keep silent or express your concerns? Just how is one supposed to go about such things?

How should one handle such things? Like I'm doing. Trying to get them to quit character assasinating and to repent of these unfounded charges.

• You don't call a brother a fool like you intimated, whether veiled or not.
• You don't accuse a brother of being a troll, and falsely at that.
• You don't wrongly accuse a brother as trying to post so he looks more knowledgeable like Nathan did and you agreed with his post.
• You don't accuse me of being a false teacher, idol worshipper, luring people by the lust of the flesh, going after flesh in defiling lust, and acussing me of being a dog, etc. by saying this about my posts: "Suggested reading for this discussion group: 2 Peter 2" especially when I am allowed to give a biblical viewpoint on these boards.

Don't change the focus, Brian,
You and Nathan are just plain wrong in how you two hijacked this thread and went after me with your own agenda to try to discredit me.

Brian, God does not look at these things lightly. I suggest you and Nathan repent of these acts.

Tony

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 11:53:42 PM
How should one handle such things? Like I'm doing. Trying to get them to quit character assasinating and to repent of these unfounded charges.

• You don't call a brother a fool like you intimated, whether veiled or not.
• You don't accuse a brother of being a troll, and falsely at that.
• You don't wrongly accuse a brother as trying to post so he looks more knowledgeable like Nathan did and you agreed with his post.
• You don't accuse me of being a false teacher, idol worshipper, luring people by the lust of the flesh, going after flesh in defiling lust, and acussing me of being a dog, etc. by saying this about my posts: "Suggested reading for this discussion group: 2 Peter 2" especially when I am allowed to give a biblical viewpoint on these boards.

Don't change the focus, Brian,
You and Nathan are just plain wrong in how you two hijacked this thread and went after me with your own agenda to try to discredit me.

Brian, God does not look at these things lightly. I suggest you and Nathan repent of these acts.

Tony

Tony,

I know it is hard to do but just let it all roll of your back like water. Sometimes this is what happens when there is disagreement in beliefs. This same thing has happened to me a few times.

Ye have to be tuff man.  :spank: (Tit. 3:2) To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

Jesus said "be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

CHB

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM
Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

Call someone a hypocrite, snake,  that they are of their father the devil?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 19, 2009, 12:33:07 AM

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM
Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

Call someone a hypocrite, snake,  that they are of their father the devil?

Im TRULY Hoping this is a Joke Paul....

COS THIS father of  DEVIL LARK IS getting out of Hand...

Tis all Lies against HE who is the TRUTH...., a Murderer is One who HATES his Brother and persuades him to LIVE IN DEATH...NOT in LIFE WHO IS TRUTH...lies are DEATH, not TRUTH of the ONE WHO IS!

but  then we take scripture and USE it for ourselves.

Consider your tongue..Kinda shaped like a Snake egh....

SPITS poison which KILLS...as In LIFE and death are In the POWER of the TONGUE....funny how satan has the POWER of death also egh..ever see the connection :icon_flower:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 19, 2009, 12:33:07 AM

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM
Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

Call someone a hypocrite, snake,  that they are of their father the devil?

:laughing7: But Paul, who was Jesus speaking to? It wasn't another brother. These people were trying to kill him. If everyone on here called each other by these names what do you think would happen? A big BAN.

CHB

I'm not calling anyone that,  just pointing out that it is not as simple as a phrase.

If I would call anyone those things it would be myself.

QuoteSPITS poison which KILLS...as In LIFE and death are In the POWER of the TONGUE....funny how satan has the POWER of death also egh..ever see the connection

Satan can just give death; he can't give life.

But our tongue is a double-edged sword?

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 11:53:42 PM
How should one handle such things? Like I'm doing. Trying to get them to quit character assasinating and to repent of these unfounded charges.

• You don't call a brother a fool like you intimated, whether veiled or not.
• You don't accuse a brother of being a troll, and falsely at that.
• You don't wrongly accuse a brother as trying to post so he looks more knowledgeable like Nathan did and you agreed with his post.
• You don't accuse me of being a false teacher, idol worshipper, luring people by the lust of the flesh, going after flesh in defiling lust, and acussing me of being a dog, etc. by saying this about my posts: "Suggested reading for this discussion group: 2 Peter 2" especially when I am allowed to give a biblical viewpoint on these boards.

Don't change the focus, Brian,
You and Nathan are just plain wrong in how you two hijacked this thread and went after me with your own agenda to try to discredit me.

Brian, God does not look at these things lightly. I suggest you and Nathan repent of these acts.

Tony

Tony,

I know it is hard to do but just let it all roll of your back like water. Sometimes this is what happens when there is disagreement in beliefs. This same thing has happened to me a few times.

Ye have to be tuff man.  :spank: (Tit. 3:2) To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

Jesus said "be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

CHB

Thanks CHB for the good post. Good thoughts. I will try to heed your wisdom.

Quote from: Molly on February 19, 2009, 12:52:20 AM

QuoteSPITS poison which KILLS...as In LIFE and death are In the POWER of the TONGUE....funny how satan has the POWER of death also egh..ever see the connection

Satan can just give death; he can't give life.

But our tongue is a double-edged sword?

..f

well Molly consider James...AND that of the Tongue,,that little helm which Guides the ships :icon_flower:

the tongue AND  THE double MINDED Man..TO ME SPEAKS OF BOTH LIFE AND DEATH

like most of scripture ,for mine speaks of Both Covenants.. the Ministry of DEATH and HIM.. THE NEW C....the spirit of  prophesy we speak..LIFE!

we either speak from the grave...DEATH\ hades.....or from the heavens \waters above etc...tis all the same..just repeated and recorded in types shadows et all :icon_flower:

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 02:06:39 AM
we either speak from the grave...DEATH\ hades.....or from the heavens \waters above etc...tis all the same..just repeated and recorded in types shadows et all :icon_flower:

:cloud9: Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it?  :winkgrin: 

We're blessed to be alive standing tiptoe waiting for the greatest outpouring of His Spirit the world has ever seen to bring in the final harvest. It is not an accident that we're here, or that these truths that angels have desired to look into and couldn't, have been given to us. Glory to You Father for Your mercy and grace among men, that we live to see this day. Blessings....

Quote from: Cardinal on February 19, 2009, 02:36:59 AM

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 02:06:39 AM
we either speak from the grave...DEATH\ hades.....or from the heavens \waters above etc...tis all the same..just repeated and recorded in types shadows et all :icon_flower:

:cloud9: Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it?  :winkgrin: 

We're blessed to be alive standing tiptoe waiting for the greatest outpouring of His Spirit the world has ever seen to bring in the final harvest. It is not an accident that we're here, or that these truths that angels have desired to look into and couldn't, have been given to us. Glory to You Father for Your mercy and grace among men, that we live to see this day. Blessings....

AMEN

:bgdance: :bgdance: :bgdance: :bgdance: :bgdance: :bgdance: :bgdance:

Quote from: Cardinal on February 19, 2009, 02:36:59 AM

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 02:06:39 AM
we either speak from the grave...DEATH\ hades.....or from the heavens \waters above etc...tis all the same..just repeated and recorded in types shadows et all :icon_flower:

:cloud9: Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it?  :winkgrin: 

We're blessed to be alive standing tiptoe waiting for the greatest outpouring of His Spirit the world has ever seen to bring in the final harvest. It is not an accident that we're here, or that these truths that angels have desired to look into and couldn't, have been given to us. Glory to You Father for Your mercy and grace among men, that we live to see this day. Blessings....

I kinda wish to emphasise this Card-

  Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. ********************************************You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it***************************************

:icon_flower:

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 03:01:16 AM

Quote from: Cardinal on February 19, 2009, 02:36:59 AM

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 02:06:39 AM
we either speak from the grave...DEATH\ hades.....or from the heavens \waters above etc...tis all the same..just repeated and recorded in types shadows et all :icon_flower:

:cloud9: Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it?  :winkgrin: 

We're blessed to be alive standing tiptoe waiting for the greatest outpouring of His Spirit the world has ever seen to bring in the final harvest. It is not an accident that we're here, or that these truths that angels have desired to look into and couldn't, have been given to us. Glory to You Father for Your mercy and grace among men, that we live to see this day. Blessings....

I kinda wish to emphasise this Card-

  Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. ********************************************You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it***************************************

:icon_flower:

Let me add an emphasis to the emphasis that Taf added to your thought, Card.  :dontknow:

The Word is alive. It is no dead thing. It lives and breathes and kills and makes alive. It is in us, around us and in it we live and move and have our being.

I just can't say what I want to but there ya go. It's the best I got right now.

cp

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 11:53:42 PM
How should one handle such things? Like I'm doing. Trying to get them to quit character assasinating and to repent of these unfounded charges.

• You don't call a brother a fool like you intimated, whether veiled or not.
• You don't accuse a brother of being a troll, and falsely at that.
• You don't wrongly accuse a brother as trying to post so he looks more knowledgeable like Nathan did and you agreed with his post.
• You don't accuse me of being a false teacher, idol worshipper, luring people by the lust of the flesh, going after flesh in defiling lust, and acussing me of being a dog, etc. by saying this about my posts: "Suggested reading for this discussion group: 2 Peter 2" especially when I am allowed to give a biblical viewpoint on these boards.

Well, actually Tony, I was accusing other people of being fools (so to speak), if they feel someone else is foolish but they keep playing into his hands. I've encountered this in other forums where I was sure someone was stringing everyone along, and they were sure he was genuinely "unique". So, it's quite possible that I'm incorrect in being suspicious of you in those regards. Perhaps you really are as "unique" as you present yourself to be. When you get into a debate with someone and they seem to start making things up, side stepping, skirting around the issue, putting up a smoke and mirrors routine, then yeah, you have to come to the conclusion that they're trying, even if inadvertently, to sound more knowledgeable than they are.
My suggestion to everyone to read 2 Peter 2 was to put them on their guard regarding anyone who's out there who's attempting to teach them. You, Nathan, Martian - whoever.

Quote
Don't change the focus, Brian,
You and Nathan are just plain wrong in how you two hijacked this thread and went after me with your own agenda to try to discredit me.

Tony, this is my thread, that I started. I think you have your hijackers mixed up. I know my mistake was going after you more out of frustration than in love. If you read Matt Slick's comments on his CARM website about how Tentmaker went after him, you'll see there's nothing new about that. And while I certainly didn't go to those lengths, I didn't express myself as lovingly as I should have.

Quote
Brian, God does not look at these things lightly. I suggest you and Nathan repent of these acts.

And just what would you qualify as repentance in this issue?

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 07:05:26 PM
Molly, I can understand their aggravation. It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow when someone like me comes along and presents ideas counter to what Nathan, Brian and cp have held.

The pill only becomes hard to swallow when it's wrapped up in too much bologna.

Quote
So rather than change, they change the focus from where their theology is wrong to focusing on the messenger, me.

Oh, so we're all supposed to change/conform to someone's personal brand of theology? Even if the messenger is the inventor?

Quote
So rather than them seeing anything wrong on their end, they go so low as to accuse me of all manner of evil in the hopes that this refocusing on me will deflect away from them and their defects.

The pendulum has swung both ways in those regards.

Quote
Hey, they did it to Jesus when He brought to light all the bad theology of the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. And look what they did to Him. First, to deflect attention away from themselves they accuse Him of having a demon, being a drunkard and one who eats with sinners and born illegitimately. When that deflection didn't work they crucified Him.

I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. You are not Jesus.

Quote
I see these people are not repenting of this abuse of me so I must *sigh* give them over to God and let Him deal with them.

May He be merciful to them in that day[/size].[/font]

Do you like consider yourself God's anointed one? His special messenger, bringing special truth?
And that God will actually hold those accountable on that day who don't hold thee in the highest of esteem and that thou art beyond any reproach?

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 03:43:55 AM
Let me add an emphasis to the emphasis that Taf added to your thought, Card.  :dontknow:

The Word is alive. It is no dead thing. It lives and breathes and kills and makes alive. It is in us, around us and in it we live and move and have our being.

I just can't say what I want to but there ya go. It's the best I got right now. cp

:cloud9: That's very true on so many levels cp.  :thumbsup: The visible Word and the waters below the firmament (ALL created that is under heaven) are one and the same thing, so truly in IT we live and move and have our being. Blessings....

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 03:43:55 AM

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 03:01:16 AM

Quote from: Cardinal on February 19, 2009, 02:36:59 AM

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 02:06:39 AM
we either speak from the grave...DEATH\ hades.....or from the heavens \waters above etc...tis all the same..just repeated and recorded in types shadows et all :icon_flower:

:cloud9: Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it?  :winkgrin: 

We're blessed to be alive standing tiptoe waiting for the greatest outpouring of His Spirit the world has ever seen to bring in the final harvest. It is not an accident that we're here, or that these truths that angels have desired to look into and couldn't, have been given to us. Glory to You Father for Your mercy and grace among men, that we live to see this day. Blessings....

I kinda wish to emphasise this Card-

  Amen yes it is the same.....He repeats the same messages over and over again, in types and shadows, and even in the meanings of the Hebrew letters themselves. ********************************************You think maybe He wanted to make sure none could miss it***************************************

:icon_flower:

Let me add an emphasis to the emphasis that Taf added to your thought, Card.  :dontknow:

The Word is alive. It is no dead thing. It lives and breathes and kills and makes alive. It is in us, around us and in it we live and move and have our being.

I just can't say what I want to but there ya go. It's the best I got right now.

cp

Are you saying the Word is God?

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:46:45 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 19, 2009, 12:33:07 AM

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM
Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

Call someone a hypocrite, snake,  that they are of their father the devil?

:laughing7: But Paul, who was Jesus speaking to? It wasn't another brother. These people were trying to kill him. If everyone on here called each other by these names what do you think would happen? A big BAN.

CHB

Well, I don't think He called the Pharisees hypocrites, snakes, and that they are of their father the devil because they were out to kill Him. He called them those things because they were:

Shutting the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. (Mat. 23:13-14)

Making converts twice as much a son of hell as the converters themselves are. (Mat. 23:15)

Claiming that swearing by the temple is nothing, but claiming that swearing by the temple's gold is everything. (Mat. 23:16-22)

Obeying the minutiae of the law (such as giving up a tithe) but neglecting the important facets (such as justice, and mercy) - metaphorically straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel. (Mat. 23:23-24)

Being shallow - metaphorically cleaning the outside of the cup and dish but leaving the inside full of greed and self-indulgence. (Mat. 23:25-26)

Hypocrisy - appearing righteous but actually being full of wickedness, metaphorically like whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside, but full of dead men's bones. (Mat. 23:23-27)
Claiming that they would have behaved better than their forefathers - even though they build and respect the tombs of those who murdered the prophets. (Mat. 23:29-36)

Mind you this didn't apply to every Tom, Dick and Harry in Judea. But exclusively to the Priesthood.

The thing is. What's to keep a false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teacher from comparing himself to Christ and those pointing out his error as Pharisees?
This is usually how it goes. I think the true divider is, if someone truly thinks someone to be a false, bad, misguided, delusional, whacky etc. teacher and points it out. Or if someone is purposefully maliciously attacking someone's character, reputation etc. Now the false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teacher will of course accuse them of this.
And this is where God comes in: If someone is purposefully maliciously attacking someone's character, reputation etc. then they are of course under His judgment. However, if someone truly thinks someone is a false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teacher and points it out, then they are either correct or simply mistaken. I listen to pastors and teachers on the radio all the time who point out those who they consider to be false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teachers. But it's not being done out of malice or hatred or false motives, it's being done because that person sincerely believes the person they are addressing on the airwaves is false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teacher.

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 06:34:47 AM
Obeying the minutiae of the law (such as giving up a tithe) but neglecting the important facets (such as justice, and mercy) - metaphorically straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel. (Mat. 23:23-24)

Being the literalist that I am, I really do believe they swallowed camels back then. Says so in the bible! Yep! Sure does. :happygrin:

I liked what C.S. Lewis said about a camel passing through the eye of a needle, one long bloody thread from tail to snout. I think it was a poem.

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 05:12:41 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 07:05:26 PM
Molly, I can understand their aggravation. It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow when someone like me comes along and presents ideas counter to what Nathan, Brian and cp have held.

Quote
The pill only becomes hard to swallow when it's wrapped up in too much bologna.

But balogna still has its good points. Every try frying it? Yummy.

Quote
So rather than change, they change the focus from where their theology is wrong to focusing on the messenger, me.

QuoteOh, so we're all supposed to change/conform to someone's personal brand of theology? Even if the messenger is the inventor?

No, that's not the point. No one, myself included is telling you that you have to change/conform to the biblical perspective of what I've said. But these are message boards and last I looked, we are allowed to give our opinion of what we believe the Bible says on a given issue without the threat of being character assassinated.

Quote
So rather than them seeing anything wrong on their end, they go so low as to accuse me of all manner of evil in the hopes that this refocusing on me will deflect away from them and their defects.

QuoteThe pendulum has swung both ways in those regards.

I have not accused you of all manner of evil in hopes of refocusing away from me.

Quote
Hey, they did it to Jesus when He brought to light all the bad theology of the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. And look what they did to Him. First, to deflect attention away from themselves they accuse Him of having a demon, being a drunkard and one who eats with sinners and born illegitimately. When that deflection didn't work they crucified Him.

QuoteI know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. You are not Jesus.

But, Brian, you see, that is where you are wrong. Everyone who is a true, genuine believer is Jesus. We have the spirit of Christ in us. We are in fact in the body of Christ and one member can't say to another member "I have no need of you." We as a plurality of believers are also the temple of God. So if you mistreat me you in fact mistreat Jesus.
When the nations will persecute Christ's brethren Christ will tell them" "When you do it to the least of these My brethren, you do it to Me." When Paul persecuted Christ's brethren Christ said: "I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest."

Quote
I see these people are not repenting of this abuse of me so I must *sigh* give them over to God and let Him deal with them.

May He be merciful to them in that day[/size].[/font]

Quote
Do you like consider yourself God's anointed one? His special messenger, bringing special truth?
And that God will actually hold those accountable on that day who don't hold thee in the highest of esteem and that thou art beyond any reproach?

Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

Tony, you wrote.......

Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

Tony, do you see yourself as in the wrong anywhere in this situation? I know you see yourself as the abused one who is wrongfully accused of so many things but do you view your behavior as Christlike in all of the the transactions in the threads you are involved in?

If you see yourself in the wrong somewhere could you please explain where you see yourself wrong?

Tony, one last thing, what if you are not a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who has been confronted and willed not to change but to defend himself, something Jesus did not do at the cross?

cp

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 12:59:11 PM

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 05:12:41 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 18, 2009, 07:05:26 PM
Molly, I can understand their aggravation. It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow when someone like me comes along and presents ideas counter to what Nathan, Brian and cp have held.

Quote
The pill only becomes hard to swallow when it's wrapped up in too much bologna.

But balogna still has its good points. Every try frying it? Yummy.

Quote
So rather than change, they change the focus from where their theology is wrong to focusing on the messenger, me.

QuoteOh, so we're all supposed to change/conform to someone's personal brand of theology? Even if the messenger is the inventor?

No, that's not the point. No one, myself included is telling you that you have to change/conform to the biblical perspective of what I've said. But these are message boards and last I looked, we are allowed to give our opinion of what we believe the Bible says on a given issue without the threat of being character assassinated.

Quote
So rather than them seeing anything wrong on their end, they go so low as to accuse me of all manner of evil in the hopes that this refocusing on me will deflect away from them and their defects.

QuoteThe pendulum has swung both ways in those regards.

I have not accused you of all manner of evil in hopes of refocusing away from me.

Quote
Hey, they did it to Jesus when He brought to light all the bad theology of the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. And look what they did to Him. First, to deflect attention away from themselves they accuse Him of having a demon, being a drunkard and one who eats with sinners and born illegitimately. When that deflection didn't work they crucified Him.

QuoteI know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. You are not Jesus.

But, Brian, you see, that is where you are wrong. Everyone who is a true, genuine believer is Jesus. We have the spirit of Christ in us. We are in fact in the body of Christ and one member can't say to another member "I have no need of you." We as a plurality of believers are also the temple of God. So if you mistreat me you in fact mistreat Jesus.
When the nations will persecute Christ's brethren Christ will tell them" "When you do it to the least of these My brethren, you do it to Me." When Paul persecuted Christ's brethren Christ said: "I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest."

Quote
I see these people are not repenting of this abuse of me so I must *sigh* give them over to God and let Him deal with them.

May He be merciful to them in that day[/size].[/font]

Quote
Do you like consider yourself God's anointed one? His special messenger, bringing special truth?
And that God will actually hold those accountable on that day who don't hold thee in the highest of esteem and that thou art beyond any reproach?

Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

Tony, this is the last time I will address you on this whole matter . . .if you want to continue dragging it out, then let the readers discern where the truth lies.

You claim that because this is a forum, that everyone is simply sharing their opinions.  What I stated concerning you was just that.  For me, the telling nature of a mature person is one that knows what right thing should be done by another, but chooses not to instruct the offender to do what appears to be the right thing.  So you believe I should repent . . .I believe I have.  I do not apologize for what was said because I would be lying if I were to say I'm sorry, that I didn't mean it.  I'm not sorry, and I did mean it.  This is not to say I'm holding a grudge . . .but it was and still is my opinion . .and you've done nothing to disprove it as far as I'm concerned.  After rereading the original post on this that I wrote . . .there is really nothing there that is all that offensive . . . I didn't call you names, I didn't degrade you . . .I made it very clear that I was frustrated with how the conversation was going.  I was not lashing out in anger or attacking . . .if I was, I'm sure the mods would have deleted it.

I'm not above you . . you are not above me.  I have no bad feelings toward you, but I'm not going to submit to your thinking either.  You can think what you will, I'm not losing sleep over any of this.  What this is doing is the exact thing that I've said all along, you're argument over this is no different than what started this whole mess in the first place . . . it's all a distraction from what we are really here at these forums for.

I don't come here to bash or to be bashed . . .but when two people are at opposite ends, it happens on occasion where there are collisions.  After they occur, I get up, brush myself off and I move on.  For me, repenting is not saying I'm sorry for something I'm not sorry about . . .repenting is simply to stop doing it . . and I have.  But for you to continue stating my name in your conversation with others is not going to move me to apologize. 

I'm very comfortable with turning this entire thing over to the Lord and letting all of it go.  Are you willing to do the same?

This reader is not going to read this thread after posting in the thread he got tired of reading.    :laughing7:

Nathan, in your posts you held that Jesus is a spirit.
When I countered that by quoting the Scripture; Jesus' own words, that He was flesh and bones and not a spirit, then you went balistic and went into character assassination mode against me. Then Brian joined in the bashing party with cp as the choir boy singing praises to whoever was bashing me.

And yet you still hold to your innocense in this matter.
Next time, if you disagree with me just say you don't agree. You don't have to have a temper tantrum and character assassinate one who does not agree with you.

If you can't control your emotions then just don't post. It's that simple.

Tony

guess what . . . I disagree.

well, I find all the different viewpoints valuable and instructive.

That should count for something.

Molly it's all very constructive if one has the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

The Choir Boy

Tony, I really am curious as to your response to what I wrote below......

Tony, you wrote.......

Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

Tony, do you see yourself as in the wrong anywhere in this situation? I know you see yourself as the abused one who is wrongfully accused of so many things but do you view your behavior as Christlike in all of the the transactions in the threads you are involved in?

If you see yourself in the wrong somewhere could you please explain where you see yourself wrong?

Tony, one last thing, what if you are not a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who has been confronted and willed not to change but to defend himself, something Jesus did not do at the cross?

cp

Quote from: Molly on February 19, 2009, 05:20:23 PM
well, I find all the different viewpoints valuable and instructive.

That should count for something.

You are right, Molly.  :icon_flower:

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 05:55:21 PM
Molly it's all very constructive if one has the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

The Choir Boy

Great.  So could we all sing together then?  Because there is one Spirit, but his voice are the voices of many waters.  If you've ever been in a choir, groups of people are singing different notes, but if everyone is on pitch, when it comes together--it's beautiful.




Revelation 4:5
And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.


Revelation 1:15
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.



[many] "waters"

G5204
ὕδωρ, ὕδατος
hudōr hudatos
hoo'-dor, hoo'-dat-os, etc.
From the base of G5205; water (as if rainy) literally or figuratively: - water.


G5205
ὑετός
huetos
hoo-et-os'
From a primary word ὕω huō (to rain); rain, especially a shower: - rain.

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 06:34:47 AM

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:46:45 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 19, 2009, 12:33:07 AM

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM
Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

Call someone a hypocrite, snake,  that they are of their father the devil?

:laughing7: But Paul, who was Jesus speaking to? It wasn't another brother. These people were trying to kill him. If everyone on here called each other by these names what do you think would happen? A big BAN.

CHB

Quote from: Brian
Well, I don't think He called the Pharisees hypocrites, snakes, and that they are of their father the devil because they were out to kill Him. He called them those things because they were:

(John 8:39-41) "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father".  

Jesus goes on to say, "if God were your Father ye would love me", and tells them they are of their father the Devil. I know this wasn't the only reason Jesus called them snakes, vipers, and hyprocrites.

Anyway, Jesus could call anyone these things in love and mercy but not us, the human nature in all of us doesn't judge righteously like that of Jesus.

Quote from: Brian
Shutting the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. (Mat. 23:13-14)

Making converts twice as much a son of hell as the converters themselves are. (Mat. 23:15)

Claiming that swearing by the temple is nothing, but claiming that swearing by the temple's gold is everything. (Mat. 23:16-22)

Obeying the minutiae of the law (such as giving up a tithe) but neglecting the important facets (such as justice, and mercy) - metaphorically straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel. (Mat. 23:23-24)

Being shallow - metaphorically cleaning the outside of the cup and dish but leaving the inside full of greed and self-indulgence. (Mat. 23:25-26)

Hypocrisy - appearing righteous but actually being full of wickedness, metaphorically like whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside, but full of dead men's bones. (Mat. 23:23-27)
Claiming that they would have behaved better than their forefathers - even though they build and respect the tombs of those who murdered the prophets. (Mat. 23:29-36)

Mind you this didn't apply to every Tom, Dick and Harry in Judea. But exclusively to the Priesthood.

I believe the main reason Jesus called them snakes, vipers, and hyprocrites, was because of their attitude, intentions, and self righteousness towards their own works. They put works before mercy, love, compassion, which is the fruits of the Spirit.

Quote from: Brian
The thing is. What's to keep a false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teacher from comparing himself to Christ and those pointing out his error as Pharisees?

God. Only he knows the whole truth anyway.
The pharisees and and a lot of the Jew's were mistaken in Jesus' day, so who's to say this isn't possible today. One has to be careful I think when calling someone a false teacher and so forth

Quote from: Brian
This is usually how it goes. I think the true divider is, if someone truly thinks someone to be a false, bad, misguided, delusional, whacky etc. teacher and points it out. Or if someone is purposefully maliciously attacking someone's character, reputation etc. Now the false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teacher will of course accuse them of this.
And this is where God comes in: If someone is purposefully maliciously attacking someone's character, reputation etc. then they are of course under His judgment. However, if someone truly thinks someone is a false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teacher and points it out, then they are either correct or simply mistaken. I listen to pastors and teachers on the radio all the time who point out those who they consider to be false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc. teachers. But it's not being done out of malice or hatred or false motives, it's being done because that person sincerely believes the person they are addressing on the airwaves is false, bad, misguided, delusional, wacky etc.

Does any of those teachers you are referring to repent and change their ways that you know of? Isn't it up to God to change a persons heart, pray tell how can any of us change it?

CHB

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 06:00:58 PM
Tony, I really am curious as to your response to what I wrote below......

Tony, you wrote.......

Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

QuoteTony, do you see yourself as in the wrong anywhere in this situation? I know you see yourself as the abused one who is wrongfully accused of so many things but do you view your behavior as Christlike in all of the the transactions in the threads you are involved in?

cp, it's not about if I am wrong in this situation. The problem is I am allowed to post my scriptural based beliefs without the threat of being character assassinated by someone who can't control their emotions.

QuoteIf you see yourself in the wrong somewhere could you please explain where you see yourself wrong?

That is a deflection from the real issue of me being character assassinated for stating what I believe.

Quote
Tony, one last thing, what if you are not a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who has been confronted and willed not to change but to defend himself, something Jesus did not do at the cross?

cp

Again, that is a deflection away from the real problem here which is I am allowed to post my beliefs on these boards as long as they are biblically oriented without threat of being character assassinated.

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 06:15:23 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 06:00:58 PM
Tony, I really am curious as to your response to what I wrote below......

Tony, you wrote.......

Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

QuoteTony, do you see yourself as in the wrong anywhere in this situation? I know you see yourself as the abused one who is wrongfully accused of so many things but do you view your behavior as Christlike in all of the the transactions in the threads you are involved in?

cp, it's not about if I am wrong in this situation. The problem is I am allowed to post my scriptural based beliefs without the threat of being character assassinated by someone who can't control their emotions.

QuoteIf you see yourself in the wrong somewhere could you please explain where you see yourself wrong?

That is a deflection from the real issue of me being character assassinated for stating what I believe.

Quote
Tony, one last thing, what if you are not a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who has been confronted and willed not to change but to defend himself, something Jesus did not do at the cross?

cp

Again, that is a deflection away from the real problem here which is I am allowed to post my beliefs on these boards as long as they are biblically oriented without threat of being character assassinated.

Major red flags to me Tony. You cannot admit you are wrong in any way yet you freely judge others as wrong. You have set yourself up as judge and executioner.

The real problem is when a lack of humility and grace appear within us and it moves to the outer court. Our real problem is not being able to admit we are sinners and very prone to error.

You love that term 'character assassination' and you call me a choir boy in a not very flattering manner.

Tony, I just can't believe you can't or won't answer my questions. That is beyond me.

cp

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 06:22:04 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 06:15:23 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 06:00:58 PM
Tony, I really am curious as to your response to what I wrote below......

Tony, you wrote.......

Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

QuoteTony, do you see yourself as in the wrong anywhere in this situation? I know you see yourself as the abused one who is wrongfully accused of so many things but do you view your behavior as Christlike in all of the the transactions in the threads you are involved in?

cp, it's not about if I am wrong in this situation. The problem is I am allowed to post my scriptural based beliefs without the threat of being character assassinated by someone who can't control their emotions.

QuoteIf you see yourself in the wrong somewhere could you please explain where you see yourself wrong?

That is a deflection from the real issue of me being character assassinated for stating what I believe.

Quote
Tony, one last thing, what if you are not a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who has been confronted and willed not to change but to defend himself, something Jesus did not do at the cross?

cp

Again, that is a deflection away from the real problem here which is I am allowed to post my beliefs on these boards as long as they are biblically oriented without threat of being character assassinated.

Major red flags to me Tony. You cannot admit you are wrong in any way yet you freely judge others as wrong. You have set yourself up as judge and executioner.

The real problem is when a lack of humility and grace appear within us and it moves to the outer court. Our real problem is not being able to admit we are sinners and very prone to error.

You love that term 'character assassination' and you call me a choir boy in a not very flattering manner.

Tony, I just can't believe you can't or won't answer my questions. That is beyond me.

cp

Nothing yet Tony???

I am here to learn and I am learning tons by your refusal or,most likely, your inability to answer my questions to you. I truely love human nature and what it can and can't do.

You truely are a teacher.

cp

Quote
So rather than change, they change the focus from where their theology is wrong to focusing on the messenger, me.

QuoteOh, so we're all supposed to change/conform to someone's personal brand of theology? Even if the messenger is the inventor?

Quote
No, that's not the point. No one, myself included is telling you that you have to change/conform to the biblical perspective of what I've said. But these are message boards and last I looked, we are allowed to give our opinion of what we believe the Bible says on a given issue without the threat of being character assassinated.[/size][/font]

I guess that "rather than change" statement threw me off. You know like change as in conform. Change their minds. I guess what you're really getting at are ad hominem attacks. Which is attacking the person rather than the subject matter. The problem in a situation like this is, what if I were to make blanket statements along the lines of "Jesus was really an android"? Now is someone supposed to address such a statement from a Scriptural theological standpoint? Let's say they do, but I persist in maintaining my position. Now of course I wouldn't have a Scriptural or theological leg to stand on to maintain my position, so I'd have to resort to strategy. Maybe I've read a few books with titles like "How to never lose an argument". I realize in this forum that people are supposed to be allowed to give their opinion of what we believe the Bible says. But I will say this. If it's an opinion, than it should be clearly stated as such, rather than being presented as if it were a fact. If a person has no direct Scriptural backing to support their belief, then they should be clear about that, instead of dodging that point and trying to intellectualize their way around it.

Quote
So rather than them seeing anything wrong on their end, they go so low as to accuse me of all manner of evil in the hopes that this refocusing on me will deflect away from them and their defects.

QuoteThe pendulum has swung both ways in those regards.

Quote
I have not accused you of all manner of evil in hopes of refocusing away from me.

Untrue. You have accused me of having ulterior motives which I did not have. (not to mention being in legue with Satan)

I had no hopes of refocusing away from you. Take a look at my activity record here. I'm barely here anymore. If you see a day where I haven't posted, it's most likely a day I haven't been here period, even to lurk. a few days ago, I started a post, this post. Where the focus (on my part) was a huge dichotomy in Catholicism regarding Salvation. When I came back to it, it had gone in different directions. Which is fine.
But I did not try reading through all of the posts to try figuring out what different direction it had taken.

Where you and I got into it was post 163 & 165 - exclusively. Quite frankly I have no idea where the focus had gone or what you had been trying to establish overall. So it would be impossible to try deflecting, or whatever it is you're accusing me of. I have yet to read more than like 10% of my own thread, beyond our discourse. So you have falsely accused me in these regards. In other words, you were mistaken. Simple as that. Nothing involving Satan. Nothing involving the wrath of God. You simply came to an erroneous conclusion.

Quote
Hey, they did it to Jesus when He brought to light all the bad theology of the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. And look what they did to Him. First, to deflect attention away from themselves they accuse Him of having a demon, being a drunkard and one who eats with sinners and born illegitimately. When that deflection didn't work they crucified Him.

QuoteI know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. You are not Jesus.

Quote
But, Brian, you see, that is where you are wrong. Everyone who is a true, genuine believer is Jesus. We have the spirit of Christ in us. We are in fact in the body of Christ and one member can't say to another member "I have no need of you." We as a plurality of believers are also the temple of God. So if you mistreat me you in fact mistreat Jesus.
When the nations will persecute Christ's brethren Christ will tell them" "When you do it to the least of these My brethren, you do it to Me." When Paul persecuted Christ's brethren Christ said: "I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest."

Good point. It sorta sounded like you were exalting yourself there. And you do realize in the process reducing me to the position of a Pharisee? In other words, perhaps not part of the body. Perhaps accusing me of not really being a Christian. Simply because I called your modus operandi into question, out of genuine worry. The thing is Tony, this occurs all the time within the body of Christ. Was Paul for instance attacking the character of, or persecuting the Corinthians? Not that I'm putting myself in the role of Paul or you in the role of the Corinthians.
But I think it's a closer analogy than one of Christ and the Pharisees, in this instance.

Quote
I see these people are not repenting of this abuse of me so I must *sigh* give them over to God and let Him deal with them.
May He be merciful to them in that day

Quote
Do you like consider yourself God's anointed one? His special messenger, bringing special truth?
And that God will actually hold those accountable on that day who don't hold thee in the highest of esteem and that thou art beyond any reproach?

Quote
Brian, you keep deflecting away from the real problem. It is not about me wanting people to hold me in highest esteem or that I believe I am beyond reproach. The point is what you and Nathan were doing in your attempts to character assassinate me because I held views different from you guys. You two got frustrated so you lashed out at the messenger. I am in Christ. I am a believer. Christ's spirit is in me. So when you abuse me, you abuse Christ. And what if I am a messenger of God? Where does that leave you who abuse such ones?

Well first of all, you need to stop lumping me and Nathan together. When I asked him what he had written that he was wondering if he would get banned for, I honestly didn't know, because I hadn't been following my thread. I certainly had no idea it was something he had said about you.

I don't know Nathan very well, I really have no real idea of what his theological stances are. I only sided with his appraisal of your modus operandi as stated in the beginning of post 168, which he had to direct me to. So you see, for me the focus was your modus operandi, rather than a deflection. Now here's where I made some bad mistakes. Not bad mistakes that put me in league with Satan or would invoke the Wrath of God. But bad mistakes nonetheless. First of all, I should have read the entire thread to see exactly what prompted Nathan to say what he had to say about you. In not doing so I of course read it out of context. Then coupled it with a lengthy PM session with you. My statements were based much more on my PM's with you, than anything being discussed in this thread, so again, I had no agenda to "deflect".

Now here's where I repent (no salivating now :happy3:). I most certainly have not been of sound mind and body the last couple of days, having been afflicted with the flu, which included running a fever. Not being of sound mind, I had no business posting anything about anything anywhere. I woke up this morning with all of this previous discourse swirling through my head, and felt the Holy Spirit convicting me for a lack of temperance. While I was not of sound enough mind to be making statements, I was aware that I wasn't of sound mind. It's like I had the presence of mind to know it was a bad idea for me go get in my car and get on the freeway in my condition, I should have known better than to post in my condition as well.

So, I, Brian,  publicly apologize for anything I said about you, Tony N, in this thread.  

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
So, I, Brian,  publicly apologize for anything I said about you, Tony N, in this thread.  

And if I said anything that was in taking you wrong I am sorry about that.

Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
So, I, Brian,  publicly apologize for anything I said about you, Tony N, in this thread.  

And if I said anything that was in taking you wrong I am sorry about that.

Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

Cant we carry on? :icon_king:

...I was making  serious Bucks out Cotton Candy..Tried to move in on the popcorn stall too..but someone else got there first :icon_flower:

:icon_king:

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
So, I, Brian,  publicly apologize for anything I said about you, Tony N, in this thread.  

And if I said anything that was in taking you wrong I am sorry about that.

Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

if

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM

Ye have to be tuff man.  :spank: (Tit. 3:2) To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

Jesus said "be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

CHB

Here's problem I'm having with some of theses analogies. They are comparing those of the Body of Christ, with those outside of the Body of Christ.

This is a situation that is supposed to be occurring within the Body of Christ. Correct?

As for Jesus addressing His own disciples; He used terms such as "foolish" "clueless" (Mark 7:18) Pointed out where they were out of line. Paul points out where people are out of line within the Body.

Quote from: Taffy on February 19, 2009, 11:40:49 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
So, I, Brian,  publicly apologize for anything I said about you, Tony N, in this thread.  

And if I said anything that was in taking you wrong I am sorry about that.

Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

Cant we carry on? :icon_king:

...I was making  serious Bucks out Cotton Candy..Tried to move in on the popcorn stall too..but someone else got there first :icon_flower:

:icon_king:

You troll.

Quote from: BrianWhere the focus (on my part) was a huge dichotomy in Catholicism regarding Salvation.

Oh, that's what this thread is about? :mshock:

That sounds like a good discussion.  Maybe we should try that for a while.

Quote from: Brian on February 20, 2009, 12:17:22 AM

Quote from: CHB on February 19, 2009, 12:30:36 AM

Ye have to be tuff man.  :spank: (Tit. 3:2) To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

Jesus said "be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Just ask yourself, "what would Jesus do"? 

CHB

Quote from: Brian
Here's problem I'm having with some of theses analogies. They are comparing those of the Body of Christ, with those outside of the Body of Christ.

This is a situation that is supposed to be occurring within the Body of Christ. Correct?

As for Jesus addressing His own disciples; He used terms such as "foolish" "clueless" (Mark 7:18) Pointed out where they were out of line. Paul points out where people are out of line within the Body.

How do you determine who the Body of Christ is?

As I said before, His disciples wasn't trying to kill Him.

CHB

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

:cloud9: I'm all for a group hug....... :grouppray:

And Taffy, speaking of popcorn.......you're gonna love this......I once in prayer saw the sons of God that are going thru the fire right now, popping up like literal popcorn, ie. Christ which is internal is coming out, and raising up.

Quote from: Cardinal on February 20, 2009, 01:23:04 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

:cloud9: I'm all for a group hug....... :grouppray:

And Taffy, speaking of popcorn.......you're gonna love this......I once in prayer saw the sons of God that are going thru the fire right now, popping up like literal popcorn, ie. Christ which is internal is coming out, and raising up.

ya Right Card, I did...thats cool. :icon_flower:

Quote from: Cardinal on February 20, 2009, 01:23:04 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

:cloud9: I'm all for a group hug....... :grouppray:

And Taffy, speaking of popcorn.......you're gonna love this......I once in prayer saw the sons of God that are going thru the fire right now, popping up like literal popcorn, ie. Christ which is internal is coming out, and raising up.

Buttered with Garlic salt?

Remember Pop Tarts?

I have coined a new Theological phrase for those who go into the lake of fire and come out later better than when they went in. They are called Pop Tartians.  :laughing7:

 :cloud9: Laughter doeth good like a medicine..... :laughing7:  :thumbsup:

Yeah Remember those pop tarts..burnt ya TONGUE didnt they,...can feel em Now.... :icon_flower:
nice thou :icon_flower:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 20, 2009, 01:55:29 AM

Quote from: Cardinal on February 20, 2009, 01:23:04 AM

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

:cloud9: I'm all for a group hug....... :grouppray:

And Taffy, speaking of popcorn.......you're gonna love this......I once in prayer saw the sons of God that are going thru the fire right now, popping up like literal popcorn, ie. Christ which is internal is coming out, and raising up.

Buttered with Garlic salt?

Sounds like  purified condiments.....Funny how we all like it sugar coated egh.... :icon_flower:

Brian,

(Is this the type of thing you are looking for, only with more detail?)  The following is an excerpt from EONS AS INDEFINITE DURATION part 2 on the www.concordant.org (http://www.concordant.org) site.  Of some interest to  are the last 2 paragraphs concerning the religious systems usurping the authority of Christ, the secular authority (Justinian) trying to get the upper hand, and the doctrinal formulations of the Institutional Church near the time it first used anathema which was in condemnation of Origen and certain of his views.
--------------------------------------

TRANSCENDENTLY TRANSCENDENT
EONIAN BURDEN OF GLORY

It is often claimed that in 2 Corinthians 4:18, "eonian" (aiõnion) must mean "eternal" because it is set in contrast to the word "temporal," meaning pertaining to time as opposed to eternity. The Greek word, however, translated "temporal" in the AV (proskaira) has no connection with the word for "time" (chronos); in English form, the Greek is literally TOWARD-SEASON, and means "temporary" or "for [only] a part of a season."
Contrastive terms need not be antithetical in meaning. Our Lord deemed it sufficient contrast to compare temporary (i.e., a part of a season) with a single season–less than a year (Matt.13:21). Yet here, in 2 Corinthians 4:18, while the contrast is far greater, it does not follow that it is therefore infinite. The contrast is between our afflictions, which last, so to say, but for a brief "partial season," and our promised, long-enduring "eonian" glory which lasts throughout the oncoming eons, until the consummation, when God is All in all. The eonian life and glory which is our special portion (cp 1 Tim.4:10b; 2 Tim.2:10,11), no more debars the endless life and glory in which we shall participate as well (cp Luke 1:33b; 1 Thess.4:17b; 1 Cor.15:28), than youthful happiness precludes the happiness of maturity. Hence, in considering the "eonian" punishment of Matthew 25:46, none who are wise will make the claim that since we will be immortal, therefore the eonian life of which this passage speaks is to be understood as "life eternal," and, in turn, the eonian punishment which this passage entails is to be judged to be "everlasting."

Even if it should be conceded that "eon" signifies "duration" and never signifies "everlasting," and even that it is always used, in itself, to refer to terminable periods, some might still claim that it, nonetheless, in certain instances concerned with judgment, is used to refer to an infinite series of eons (the terminable periods themselves) of which the interminable future will consist. This ingenious claim seems to be the argument of the ancient Eastern church. It is important to note that this is a disputation concerning interpretation between early Greek-speaking believers, not an argument among scholars as to essential word meaning or translation.

While some of the early Greek believers held to eventual universal reconciliation, they also believed in eonian punishment. Certainly, those Greeks who believed in universal reconciliation did not claim that aiõn or aiõnion meant everlasting or eternal. Indeed, in affirming the doctrine of endless punishment, even the Byzantine Emperor Justinian did not contend that such ones had misunderstood the meaning of eonian hitherto. Instead, he simply claimed orthodoxy's divine investiture for deciding truth in matters of interpretation (similar to the "papal infallibility" of Rome). His point was that since they (the so-called "holy church of Christ") taught the ateleutêtos (i.e., unconsummating [a non-scriptural word]) punishment of the wicked, therefore such a doctrine was true. Evidently, thus it was claimed that a never-consummating series of eons lay ahead for the lost during which their frightful torments would never cease. *4

"The Emperor Justinian (540 A.D.), in calling the celebrated local council which assembled in 544, addressed his edict to Mennos, Patriarch of Constantinople, and elaborately argued against the doctrines he had determined should be condemned. He does not say in defining the Catholic doctrine at that time, 'We believe in aiõnion punishment,' for that was just what the universalist, Origen himself taught. Nor does he say, 'The word aiõnion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration,' as he would have said had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek with all the words of that copious speech from which to choose, he says, 'The holy church of Christ teaches an endless [ateleutêtos] aiõnios life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutêtos) punishment to the wicked.' Aiõnios was not enough in his judgment to denote endless duration, and he employed ateleutêtos. This demonstrates that even as late as A.D. 540, aiõnios spoke of limited duration, and required an added word to [convey the thought] of endless duration." *5


*4. cf Alexander Thomson, Unsearchable Riches, vol.26, p.283.

*5. John Wesley Hanson, Aiõn-Aiõnios, p.74; Chicago: Northwestern Universalist Publishing House, 1875, p.74. 

Nice post Reformer...good info.

Nathan and Willie and Whoever,

There's something I would like you to look at that Tony wrote.  He really does good work.  This is something I added to my collected arsenal.

http://saviourofall.org/opposers/Landstrom.html (http://saviourofall.org/opposers/Landstrom.html)

He probably prefers other writings that display him to better advantage.  Maybe he could post links to some examples.  A greater exposure to the Tony N genre invites more respect.  Our unity cherishes the supply of every joint (separation) and ligament (connection.)


Psalm 133 (AV)...
1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren (those from the same womb) to dwell together in unity!
2 It is like the precious ointment (anointing) upon the head (the ultimate High Priest Jesus), that ran down upon the beard (maturity), even Aaron's (meaning, "Enlightened") beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
3 As the dew of Hermon (meaning, "a sanctuary," this is the Mt of Transfiguration), and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion (Zion {"dry, signpost, monument"; site of David's "tottering tent" and Solomon's palace:  ROYAL}, Moriah {"seen, inspected, chosen of Jah"; site where Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice and Solomon's Temple:  PRIESTHOOD}, Ophel {"hill, stronghold, to lift up"--permanentized through resurrection}, the reigning priesthood is the Melchisedek Order by reason of undiminishable permanent life!): for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore (immortality).

Dewpoint is when the Spirit/Word that already is manifests, condensing on us and our world.  God has a certain time and place where everything comes together.

Quote from: claypot on February 19, 2009, 11:48:33 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 19, 2009, 11:35:00 PM

Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
So, I, Brian,  publicly apologize for anything I said about you, Tony N, in this thread.  

And if I said anything that was in taking you wrong I am sorry about that.

Can we get a group hug going here? :gimmefive:

if

...a picture paints a thousand words.

Quote from: reFORMer on February 20, 2009, 07:43:35 AM


Nathan and Willie and Whoever,

There's something I would like you to look at that Tony wrote.  He really does good work.  This is something I added to my collected arsenal.

http://saviourofall.org/opposers/Landstrom.html (http://saviourofall.org/opposers/Landstrom.html)

He probably prefers other writings that display him to better advantage.  Maybe he could post links to some examples.  A greater exposure to the Tony N genre invites more respect.  Our unity cherishes the supply of every joint (separation) and ligament (connection.)


Psalm 133 (AV)...
1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren (those from the same womb) to dwell together in unity!
2 It is like the precious ointment (anointing) upon the head (the ultimate High Priest Jesus), that ran down upon the beard (maturity), even Aaron's (meaning, "Enlightened") beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
3 As the dew of Hermon (meaning, "a sanctuary," this is the Mt of Transfiguration), and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion (Ophel {"hill, stronghold, to lift up"}, Moriah {"seen, inspected, chosen of Jah"; site where Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice and Solomon's Temple}, Zion {"dry, signpost, monument"; site of David's "tottering tent" and Solomon's palace}): for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore (immortality).

Dewpoint is when the Spirit/Word that already is manifests, condensing on us and our world.  God has a certain time and place where everything comes together.

Deu 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: 

Quote from: reFORMer on February 20, 2009, 07:43:35 AM


Nathan and Willie and Whoever,

There's something I would like you to look at that Tony wrote.  He really does good work.  This is something I added to my collected arsenal.

http://saviourofall.org/opposers/Landstrom.html (http://saviourofall.org/opposers/Landstrom.html)

He probably prefers other writings that display him to better advantage.  Maybe he could post links to some examples.  A greater exposure to the Tony N genre invites more respect.  Our unity cherishes the supply of every joint (separation) and ligament (connection.)


Psalm 133 (AV)...
1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren (those from the same womb) to dwell together in unity!
2 It is like the precious ointment (anointing) upon the head (the ultimate High Priest Jesus), that ran down upon the beard (maturity), even Aaron's (meaning, "Enlightened") beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
3 As the dew of Hermon (meaning, "a sanctuary," this is the Mt of Transfiguration), and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion (Ophel {"hill, stronghold, to lift up"}, Moriah {"seen, inspected, chosen of Jah"; site where Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice and Solomon's Temple}, Zion {"dry, signpost, monument"; site of David's "tottering tent" and Solomon's palace}): for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore (immortality).

Dewpoint is when the Spirit/Word that already is manifests, condensing on us and our world.  God has a certain time and place where everything comes together.

I am a worm. A humbled worm at that.

Tony

There has never been any doubt that Tony has a grasp on the literal understanding of things . .this is what makes him the great debater that he is.  Every place has a purpose, every purpose has a place.  There is a place and purpose for Tony in the kingdom, there is a purpose and place for me in the kingdom. 

We're just in different places with different purposes.  There is no condemnation here.  We both have opinions and observations.  We seldom agree with the other's positions and I think it's safe to say, niether of us "want" to have the other's position forced upon us either.  Tony is effective in his arena, I'd like to think I have some affect on others in mine.

The trick is to be able to remain in one body . . .even though we are opposites, we can still be in the same body . . .so long as we don't try to kill each other in the process. . . :laughing7:

Here is one of the more profound passages in the bible that I have to remind myself of when I start to think that someone should be talking about things the way I think it should be done.

Nathan, you are correct, no matter where we are at, we can tend to think that others just need to get with it and think like we do.  lol


Phl 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

Phl 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

Phl 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:

Phl 1:17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

Phl 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Quote from: Tony N on February 20, 2009, 01:59:50 PM
I am a worm. A humbled worm at that.

The worm that does not die?

Quote from: WhiteWings on February 20, 2009, 04:47:13 PM

Quote from: Tony N on February 20, 2009, 01:59:50 PM
I am a worm. A humbled worm at that.

The worm that does not die?

Yea, though I worm my way through fires of the valley of Hinom, my asbestos body comforteth me.  :laughing7:

Quote from: Nathan on February 20, 2009, 04:22:45 PM
There has never been any doubt that Tony has a grasp on the literal understanding of things . .this is what makes him the great debater that he is.  Every place has a purpose, every purpose has a place.  There is a place and purpose for Tony in the kingdom, there is a purpose and place for me in the kingdom. 

We're just in different places with different purposes.  There is no condemnation here.  We both have opinions and observations.  We seldom agree with the other's positions and I think it's safe to say, niether of us "want" to have the other's position forced upon us either.  Tony is effective in his arena, I'd like to think I have some affect on others in mine.

The trick is to be able to remain in one body . . .even though we are opposites, we can still be in the same body . . .so long as we don't try to kill each other in the process. . . :laughing7:

Nathan, I was blessed in reading what you wrote here:

Another dimension of that is that God sent forth his seed (son) and planted it into the earth, where it died, was buried in the earth in a cave. . .but then spiritually germinated and birthed into the world a life producing form that became productive bearing fruit containing the original seed of life, which others receive and die, and are buried . .and reborn into another form of life bearing fruit . . .the circle of life in the kingdom of heaven.

It's not that I don't see the spiritual side of the Scriptures, I do. I just don't see it in everything in the Scriptures.

In Revelation I don't believe literal critters (monsters) are going to literally come out of a literal ocean with literal horns etc. I don't believe Jesus is going to metamorphise into a literal lamb or that a literal sword is going to come flying out of His mouth (not that He couldn't do that but don't think that is what is really going to happen). It is just that, well, umm, I just believe there is figurative and literal to what is written and that not all is literal and not all is figurative. But I am learning.

With that, by literal . . .I don't mean that monsters are coming out of the ocean . . .by literal in that sense, I mean those things already manifested "literally" in 70 AD.  they were "figurative" events that "literally" happened.  But there's no evidence that they're going to happen literally "again".  Not in my view anyway.

Quote from: Nathan on February 20, 2009, 07:00:26 PM
With that, by literal . . .I don't mean that monsters are coming out of the ocean . . .by literal in that sense, I mean those things already manifested "literally" in 70 AD.  they were "figurative" events that "literally" happened.  But there's no evidence that they're going to happen literally "again".  Not in my view anyway.

Again I wonder if we are using the term 'literal' correctly. No big deal I suppose, just for clarification.

Websters defines literal as....

according with the letter of the scriptures b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual <liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo> c: free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>

If one sees Scripture and Gods home turf as spiritual in the main then 'literal' is the spiritual isn't it?

If one sees the 'letter of Scripture' as spiritual then literal is the spiritual view.

If the spiritual is considered the factual while the physical is considered the shadow then the spiritual perspective is 'ordinary construction', thus literal.

If one sees the spiritual as the ordinary and the primary meaning of terms then it is the spiritual that is literal.

If the spiritual perspective is the view that is free from exaggeration and embellishment then wouldn't the spiritual be considered the literal truth?

What do you all mean or think when the word 'literal' is used?

cp

 :cloud9: I think that since the Word is as water, and water is literal, ie. we have literal water, then there is literal everything. But we also know that water is spiritual, ie. we have spiritual water, and there is the Word that was before there was anything literal.

So you can't divide up the literal water and say this part is not literal, when it's all literal. By the same token you can't divide up the spiritual water and say this part is not spiritual, when it's all spiritual.

But the goal, as Jesus showed when He walked ABOVE that which was literal, is to keep the literal as the foundation, but to keep our eyes on that which is spiritual or above. The problem arises in the mixing of the two, and as His Spirit is forever bringing us up into higher heights and deeper depths in Him, we are all in a state of looking at both, until He finishes the work in us. In Isaiah, the first 5 or 6 chapters are him looking at the earth with woe is me mentality, but the next chapter he sees Him high and lifted up. It is a progression, to become single eyed. Blessings....

GREAT WORD CARD!!

Very well explained and I see and agree with you 100% on this.  There is benefit to natural, moral and spiritual dimensions of the Word . . .each has a different percentage of benefit . .but all combined are what make up "truth" IN the Word.  Because flesh profits nothing . and we're saved by grace not by works (morality) and we're to walk in the spirit and not after the flesh . . .this then points to which of the three carries the most clout.

But you can't take away the fact that there was a physical manifestation of what was given to John.  I just don't beleive that it's physically yet to happen.

Quote from: Cardinal on February 20, 2009, 08:21:15 PM
:cloud9: I think that since the Word is as water, and water is literal, ie. we have literal water, then there is literal everything. But we also know that water is spiritual, ie. we have spiritual water, and there is the Word that was before there was anything literal.

So you can't divide up the literal water and say this part is not literal, when it's all literal. By the same token you can't divide up the spiritual water and say this part is not spiritual, when it's all spiritual.

But the goal, as Jesus showed when we walked ABOVE that which was literal, is to keep the literal as the foundation, but to keep our eyes on that which is spiritual or above. The problem arises in the mixing of the two, and as His Spirit is forever bringing us up into higher heights and deeper depths in Him, we are all in a state of looking at both, until He finishes the work in us. In Isaiah, the first 5 or 6 chapters are him looking at the earth with woe is me mentality, but the next chapter he sees Him high and lifted up. It is a progression, to become single eyed. Blessings....

well, you did it again! :thumbsup:

I will say, that when I decided I was going to learn about this Jesus who had pulled me out of a pit, literally, I decided I would make a leap of faith [Kierkegaard] and read the Bible as completely literal.

That is what blessed me, as the truth of the literal finally led me to the spiritual.  I have no idea why it worked that way, but it did.

Thus, I would tell any new student of the Bible, read it as though it is completely literal and completely true.

Quote from: claypot on February 20, 2009, 08:09:58 PM

Quote from: Nathan on February 20, 2009, 07:00:26 PM
With that, by literal . . .I don't mean that monsters are coming out of the ocean . . .by literal in that sense, I mean those things already manifested "literally" in 70 AD.  they were "figurative" events that "literally" happened.  But there's no evidence that they're going to happen literally "again".  Not in my view anyway.

Again I wonder if we are using the term 'literal' correctly. No big deal I suppose, just for clarification.

Websters defines literal as....

according with the letter of the scriptures b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual <liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo> c: free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>

If one sees Scripture and Gods home turf as spiritual in the main then 'literal' is the spiritual isn't it?

If one sees the 'letter of Scripture' as spiritual then literal is the spiritual view.

If the spiritual is considered the factual while the physical is considered the shadow then the spiritual perspective is 'ordinary construction', thus literal.

If one sees the spiritual as the ordinary and the primary meaning of terms then it is the spiritual that is literal.

If the spiritual perspective is the view that is free from exaggeration and embellishment then wouldn't the spiritual be considered the literal truth?

What do you all mean or think when the word 'literal' is used?

cp

The Scriptures always contrast "soulish" with "spiritual". It is either soulish or it is spiritual?

Likewise, outside of Scripture, interpretational conventions are such that something written is either figurative or literal.

Jesus is a literal man.
Jesus is figuratively a lamb.

"This cup is the blood of the new covenant."
The cup is literal while the blood is figurative.
The blood is not "spiritual" as opposed to "soulish."

I think people often confuse "figurative" with "spiritual." When they say this or that is "spiritual" they really mean it is figurative.

The first Adam was soulish.
The last Adam was spiritual.

The first Adam literally was motivated by the soul.
The last Adam literally was motivated by the spirit.

You wouldn't say "The last Adam spiritually was spiritual." At least I wouldn't. Would you?

Quote from: CardinalBut the goal, as Jesus showed when we walked ABOVE that which was literal, is to keep the literal as the foundation, but to keep our eyes on that which is spiritual or above.

Keep the foundation as literal--because what choice do we have?  Our foundation is literal, in a three dimensional flesh and blood world, therefore, he is literal.  But keep our eyes on the spiritual--keep our eyes on Him.   He is both. 



25During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.

27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."

29"Come," he said.

   Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

--Mat 14

QuoteIt is a progression, to become single eyed

:thumbsup:

:icon_flower:

Quote from: Taffy on February 20, 2009, 08:43:25 PM

QuoteIt is a progression, to become single eyed

:thumbsup:

:icon_flower:

Hence literally ripping out the other eye if it is giving you double vision.  But, 'eye' means that with which you see reality?


Matthew 18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

But what are you meaning by literal. Are you meaning physical?

cp

Or are you meaning something real as compared to something not?

cp

Tony, you wrote......

Jesus is a literal man.
Jesus is figuratively a lamb.

I think people often confuse "figurative" with "spiritual." When they say this or that is "spiritual" they really mean it is figurative.

This second part helps me.

As to the first could we say Jesus is literally God?

cp

It is not the eyeball that 'sees,' it is the brain.  The brain interprets the images the eyeball sends it.  But if the brain is working with a flawed eye, it has to interpret flawed images of reality.  Well, that is the literal truth.  If you are seeing double, does that mean that the reality is double?  Or is there something wrong with the eye?  Although the eye is not the last arbitrer of truth, it IS the first.  It is the foundation, so to speak.

That's why he says sin lies at the door.


7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

--James1

 :cloud9: And double minded, is carnal mind in conjunction with the mind of Christ, which is why it's the in part realm, until this thorn in our flesh is finally put down. Blessings...

Yes, so when both eyes are seeing the same thing and seeing it perfectly--working at 20/20 so to speak--working together so to speak--we suddenly can see clearly because we are seeing through one eye.



Matthew 6:22
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Quote from: Molly on February 20, 2009, 08:55:04 PM
It is not the eyeball that 'sees,' it is the brain.  The brain interprets the images the eyeball sends it.  But if the brain is working with a flawed eye, it has to interpret flawed images of reality.  Well, that is the literal truth.  If you are seeing double, does that mean that the reality is double?  Or is there something wrong with the eye?  Although the eye is not the last arbitrer of truth, it IS the first.  It is the foundation, so to speak.

That's why he says sin lies at the door.


7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

--James1

Blessed are the EYE (s) that SEE = Understanding

Your EYE = WHOLE , SOUND = complete

If your eye BE single it be FULL of LIGHT= Christ ,the LIGHT of Knowledge...

as Card said , Mixing , Babylon means CONFUSION by Mixing.


One Wine Skin of the Old Wine, another for the NEW, so BOTH be preserved...if you will, seeing one the tutor to the NEW bearing witness to ONE

Quote from: claypot on February 20, 2009, 08:54:30 PM
Tony, you wrote......

Jesus is a literal man.
Jesus is figuratively a lamb.

I think people often confuse "figurative" with "spiritual." When they say this or that is "spiritual" they really mean it is figurative.

This second part helps me.

As to the first could we say Jesus is literally God?

cp

Gosh, I wish we could carry this over on my "Natural or Spiritual" thread.

I guess you have to define your term "God." What do you mean by "God"?

The term "God" is a title, an office. The bible does say that Jesus is God. In the sense of the biblical definition of "God" Jesus literally is God in that sense.

Now here's something interesting as to something that truly is spiritual:

1Co 10:2 and all are baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed. Now the Rock was Christ."

The literal food they ate was manna which fell from the heavens. But Paul doesn't just say they all ate manna, but that they ate "spiritual food."

Likewise, when Moses struck the rock more than he should have, water flowed out and the people drank of that water. It really was water. But Paul doesn't just say they drank water but that they drank spiritual water from a spiritual rock.

Did Jesus really metamorphize into a rock and when Moses struck Him water flowed out?

In 10:2 when they passed through the sea of weeds they were baptized into Moses without getting a drop of water on them. Were they literally burried in Moses?

Interesting, huh?

heh heh... :thumbsup:

Quote from: Tony N on February 20, 2009, 09:12:03 PM

Quote from: claypot on February 20, 2009, 08:54:30 PM
Tony, you wrote......

Jesus is a literal man.
Jesus is figuratively a lamb.

I think people often confuse "figurative" with "spiritual." When they say this or that is "spiritual" they really mean it is figurative.

This second part helps me.

As to the first could we say Jesus is literally God?

cp

Gosh, I wish we could carry this over on my "Natural or Spiritual" thread.

I guess you have to define your term "God." What do you mean by "God"?

The term "God" is a title, an office. The bible does say that Jesus is God. In the sense of the biblical definition of "God" Jesus literally is God in that sense.

Now here's something interesting as to something that truly is spiritual:

1Co 10:2 and all are baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed. Now the Rock was Christ."

The literal food they ate was manna which fell from the heavens. But Paul doesn't just say they all ate manna, but that they ate "spiritual food."

Likewise, when Moses struck the rock more than he should have, water flowed out and the people drank of that water. It really was water. But Paul doesn't just say they drank water but that they drank spiritual water from a spiritual rock.

Did Jesus really metamorphize into a rock and when Moses struck Him water flowed out?

In 10:2 when they passed through the sea of weeds they were baptized into Moses without getting a drop of water on them. Were they literally burried in Moses?

Interesting, huh?

Ya got me really thinking about spiritual vs figurative but I have another question on the word literal. It almost seems like we could use the word 'really' or 'truely' or 'in all reality' in the place of literal couldn't we?

Jesus is literally God. Jesus is really God. Jesus is truely God.

Water is literally wet. Water is, in all reality, wet. Water is truely wet.

cp

Spiritual or figurative.

I see all of Scripture in a spiritual way.

I see all of Scripture in a figurative way.

I see some of Scripture in a physical way, as a physical event.

Who here would say they think these 3 statements are true and why or why not?

cp