Is David still in his grave?

[eaglesway]

    I don't get involved in drawn out positonal disputes, but we shouldn't make broad assumptions about what people believe based on these brief exchanges, it is impetuous and contrary to fellowship.... I completely realize that when we believe in the Lord Jesus we pass from death unto life. I completely understand that the fire burns now. I do not agree that the resurrection is complete now. It is each in his own order and an administation suitable to the fulness of time, an outworking of ages, in my view. Unless this is an exclusively preterist site I think I should be able to speak in the language of scripture. I certainly recognize everyone elses right to their particular view, and I do not assume the mandate to debate evryone who holds a different position than mine.

 Even as we fully understand that Jesus has overcome the world, as Paul said, "We do not yet see all things subject to Him". We must endure to the end in laboring to enter His rest, agreed. Thats exactly what overcoming is all about. "Nevertheless not my will but yours be done".This is the Sabbath rest, having ceased from our own works, entering those works which were finished before the foundation of the world. Yet, the Son had a mission to accomplish, as do we, that is the promised land, fulfilling the will of God by the Spirit of Grace.

   Ceasing from our own works is about meekness and trust and gentleness and purity- the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle with all, patiently instructing those who oppose themselves. The surest evidence that we have not entered into His rest is anxiousness to engage in debates.

  The surest evidence that we are still in Babylon (which means "confusion by mixture") is in the way we deal with one another when we disagree.
 

  We have the hope of eternal life the instant we believe. At no point did I indicate otherwise. But, and as I said before, "what i believe", is that there is further reward for the overcomers. It is entering that rest, in this life, the right to participate as mature sons in the Father's ministry of reconciliation. It also reveals more besides in the resurrection. The reward lost to the one who does not cease from his own works is not the loss of eternal life. It is the loss of certain benefits in this sojourn in the body and in the ressurection. These rewards are reserved for those who share the crucified life while in their earthly stewardship.

  Beyond that, I have no desire to debate the partial preterist or hyper preterist views, and someone might want to look at some of my posts to see what I think before they go off on a tangent. I understand the fulfilled view...but as I read it we are still in the body, and there will be eternal ramifications to how we exercise this stewardship in time.

Also IMO the parable of Lazarus was written for believers through out the entire 2000 years since Jesus' ascension. I personally don't think it was written primarily as a message about the church of today 2000 years later. It has been speaking through out the entirety of this age, and at its core I believe it to be a simple message. It concerns what Jesus said many believers will hear on the day.... I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink, I was sick, and you never visited me, I was naked and you did not cloth me....depart you lawless ones, into the age-lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

[Chris]

Well, eaglesway, since I am the one who addressed you and you have not responded - except with this post - I am hoping that it is safe to assume that you are addressing me. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I would like to respond to what you have said and take the opportunity to clarify a few things with regard to myself and my position in light of what you have said here. I hope you don't mind and I hope you don't see it as me trying to dispute or debate with you, but rather as me trying to clarify my position, which it seems you might not properly understand - based on some of the things that you have said.

   I don't get involved in drawn out positonal disputes,

Sometimes I do, but that depends on the time and the place, not to mention the topic and the audience, as I have been known to "debate" the position of UR with those who believe in ET or annihilation. Though I do not see how asking someone questions about what they believe and why or asking them how other things (that I might present to them) might factor into their position is seen as a "drawn out positional dispute".

I was actually interested in the answers to the questions I asked, as they are questions that I had to ask myself or have been asked by others at one time or another when my position was probably very similar to yours. Had I not been asked questions for which I had no "good" answers because I had never asked them of myself or had them asked of me before then I might still be exactly where I was then; still thinking that I had considered "everything" when I actually had not.

but we shouldn't make broad assumptions about what people believe based on these brief exchanges, it is impetuous and contrary to fellowship....

Not that the TM forum is not a place for fellowship, but it is also a place where particular topics and/or doctrines get discussed since, isn't it? Obviously, not everyone here agrees on all things related to UR, even if most here believe in UR. I see nothing wrong with carrying on such discussion/debates, though my hope would be that they remain civil or else I might not choose to continue to participate.

That being said, I started this thread to discuss a particular topic, something that came up in another discussion; that is the purpose for this thread. Are you saying that you do not wish to discuss the topic of the thread?  Or that you wish only to be able to post your own position without it being "questioned" by those who might not see these things the same way? 

I completely realize that when we believe in the Lord Jesus we pass from death unto life.

:thumbsup: 

But you won't explain how this belief reconciles with what you said about waiting for eternal life? To me, this is "eternal life" (to know God and Jesus Christ whom he sent). If eternal life means something else to you, then how can we know what that is if we don't ask or you won't say/answer?

I completely understand that the fire burns now.

:thumbsup:

Again, how do we know what that 'means' to you if you will not elaborate or 'tie' it to some of the other things that are being discussed with regard to the topic that you have added your comments to?

I do not agree that the resurrection is complete now.

Neither do I; though "it is finished" as far as God is concerned.

That being said, we still wait for the full realization of God being "all in all". Some do still sleep.

It is each in his own order and an administation suitable to the fulness of time, an outworking of ages, in my view. Unless this is an exclusively preterist site I think I should be able to speak in the language of scripture. I certainly recognize everyone elses right to their particular view, and I do not assume the mandate to debate evryone who holds a different position than mine.

I'm not Preterist so not sure why you have jumped to that conclusion based on my posts or any of the questions that I asked. Perhaps you can explain if you are, in fact, addressing me in particular.

 

Even as we fully understand that Jesus has overcome the world, as Paul said, "We do not yet see all things subject to Him". We must endure to the end in laboring to enter His rest, agreed. Thats exactly what overcoming is all about. "Nevertheless not my will but yours be done".This is the Sabbath rest, having ceased from our own works, entering those works which were finished before the foundation of the world. Yet, the Son had a mission to accomplish, as do we, that is the promised land, fulfilling the will of God by the Spirit of Grace.

Achieved when and where? Do any of us enter into that rest in this life? Seems to me that if anyone did, then Paul did. But you are the one who said that you do not see Paul as one who attained unto the resurrection of the dead.

If you don't then you must see the resurrection of the dead as something other than one's passing from death unto life, as you seem to believe that we do the latter here, but not the former? I was simply wondering how that 'fits' with some of the other things that Paul (and others) wrote.

Should we not wonder how these things are reconciled by others who see things differently than we do? Have you 'always' had the understanding that you do now? If not, did you not inquire of others at one time or another to gain a better/different understanding?

Ceasing from our own works is about meekness and trust and gentleness and purity- the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle with all, patiently instructing those who oppose themselves. The surest evidence that we have not entered into His rest is anxiousness to engage in debates.

So it's better to just post our own position and refuse to answer for it or answer any questions that are presented by others because of it? Because that should be seen as being "anxious to engage in debates"?

Why did you participate in the discussion of this topic if you are only interested in expressing your own position without regard for how others might see it or whether or not they might have questions for you with regard to how you see it?

Are you not interested in how others who see things differently reconcile the same scriptures that you do in order to come to a different conclusion? Does that not make you want to investigate other understandings in order to make sure that you have not missed something that someone else has not?

The very reason that I no longer believe in soul sleep is because there came a time when I was asked questions that I DIDN'T have an answer for. I was then forced to face the fact that maybe I was the one missing something. I have had to do the same thing with many "beliefs" that I once held to be "true". It's quite eye-opening and very humbling. Because of this I no longer go into discussions thinking that it is "me" who is there to teach others and show others what "they" are missing, but it might just be me who comes out of such discussions/debates with a new perspective.

But that doesn't mean that I won't point out to others what I think they are missing, if I believe that they are missing something that is relevant to their position - especially when it comes to something that I was once missing and that, once seen, changed my own perspective. Is this not how iron sharpens iron? Are we not supposed to "reason together", etc?

  The surest evidence that we are still in Babylon (which means "confusion by mixture") is in the way we deal with one another when we disagree.

Are you saying that other here (especially me, since I am the one who asked you the questions) have not dealt with you fairly, amicably, or sincerely?

This is the 3rd time in recent weeks that "Babylon" has come up in discussions with me.  :mshock:

That makes me wonder if it it is "me".  :mblush:

Or if it just makes some people feel better to be able to accuse those who they disagree with of being a part of "Babylon" or of being "in bed with the churches of today"?  :dunno2:

Either way, how does that reflect a spirit of "meekness and trust and gentleness and purity"? And how does using those "buzz words" (as I have come to see them in recent years) prove that the one who uses them is right and the rest of us are just "confused" and still part of "Babylon"?  :Chinscratch:

 

We have the hope of eternal life the instant we believe. At no point did I indicate otherwise.

I did not question that; I asked what that hope is, according to you, and when you believe that it is actually realized. Especially since the scriptures speak of those who HAVE eternal life (present tense 2000 years ago) and you speak of it (it seems) as something that we can only hope for here, but that is not realized until after we die physically and leave this world.

I am not trying to jump to conclusion or make assumptions, but that seems to be what you are saying, which is why I asked. If you don't want to answer that's fine but please don't get upset if others come to the wrong conclusions - not because they only want to assume but because you refuse to say or answer questions that might given them some clarification as to your actual position. That's not fair. No need to be fair if you don't want to be, but I can hope for it anyway.  :mblush:

But, and as I said before, "what i believe", is that there is further reward for the overcomers. It is entering that rest, in this life, the right to participate as mature sons in the Father's ministry of reconciliation. It also reveals more besides in the resurrection. The reward lost to the one who does not cease from his own works is not the loss of eternal life. It is the loss of certain benefits in this sojourn in the body and in the ressurection. These rewards are reserved for those who share the crucified life while in their earthly stewardship.

So you equate "eternal life" with "immortality"? Seeing both as that "life" that no one receives or will have until after they die and after they are (later) resurrected?

Besides all of the other questions that I asked about this already, I can't see how this reconciled with the fact that it is THIS MORTAL that must "put on" immortality and THIS CORRUPTIBLE that must "put on" incorruption and (according to Peter) it's not about being "unclothed" (dying physically, as I see it) but about being "clothed upon" that MORTALITY might be swallowed up OF LIFE.

I don't guess you'd tell me how you reconcile that if I asked?

Beyond that, I have no desire to debate the partial preterist or hyper preterist views, and someone might want to look at some of my posts to see what I think before they go off on a tangent. I understand the fulfilled view...but as I read it we are still in the body, and there will be eternal ramifications to how we exercise this stewardship in time.

Since I am not Preterist I don't know if you are speaking of me or someone else, though it seem to me that you are responding to my post to you. So wonder if you have not made assumptions of your own with regard to my position and/or what motivates my questions?

Also IMO the parable of Lazarus was written for believers through out the entire 2000 years since Jesus' ascension. I personally don't think it was written primarily as a message about the church of today 2000 years later. It has been speaking through out the entirety of this age, and at its core I believe it to be a simple message. It concerns what Jesus said many believers will hear on the day.... I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink, I was sick, and you never visited me, I was naked and you did not cloth me....depart you lawless ones, into the age-lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

I see the story of Lazarus as a parable that speaks spiritual truths as it relates to "the dead"... applicable to all men - before and after Lazarus was physically resurrected from an earthly tomb. Just as all of Christ's miracles (seen) pointed to higher spiritual truths, that are eternal (not seen).   :gthumbsup:

[eaglesway]

What I have discovered is that when there is this much misunderstanding there is really not much use in continuing. I feel like you misunderstood what I was saying and you feel like I misunderstand what you are saying. I was not defining the TM forum in any way, or asking anyone to fly by my handbook. I personally do not get involved in these debates. I personally, have found this type of discussion to be fruitless, since it is usually a matter of people trying to prove a point.

  I never said anything about waiting for eternal life for instance.

  I also never said that Paul did not attain to the resurrection of the dead.

  You quote these things as if I said them but I did not. What I said was, that I thought in that particular verse, Paul was alluding to something like the first resurrection, or the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and that there was something -he said it not me -he had not yet attained to. So, if you do not need to take the time to read what I really said, what's the point of further discussion. May the Lord bless you, I have no point to prove, I was merely suggesting that there may be some alternatives that are not commonly examined.

  So I was basicly sharing some things I have been considering as possibilities for some of the issues I read in a very interesting thread, but I just am not disposed to debate those possibilities, and I don't think you read my post very carefully before you responded. But hey, thats alright. I just don't want to go there, I'm not saying you shouldn't. Peace, john

[Chris]

What I have discovered is that when there is this much misunderstanding there is really not much use in continuing.

Ok

I feel like you misunderstood what I was saying

Which is why I asked questions; but you, apparently don't like to be asked questions.

and you feel like I misunderstand what you are saying.

And, apparently, you have.

I was not defining the TM forum in any way, or asking anyone to fly by my handbook.

Something no one has ever claimed.

I personally do not get involved in these debates.

Yet you entered the conversation.

I personally, have found this type of discussion to be fruitless, since it is usually a matter of people trying to prove a point.

Yet, again, you entered this "fruitless" discussion?

Do tell us, when it comes to differences in opinions, what do you expect? For people to say they are wrong? That they are not sure of what they believe or why? For them not to support their position? Especially if asked about it? 

I never said anything about waiting for eternal life for instance.

Yet you referred to it as a "hope" rather than a reality, even when speaking of Paul,  which is why I ASKED. I did not CLAIM anything about what you said. I ASKED.

I also never said that Paul did not attain to the resurrection of the dead.

I asked you if you read what Paul said as him saying that he HAD NOT attained unto the resurrection of the dead and you answered with: "I read that there was something he had not yet attained to."

He was talking about "the resurrection of the dead" and I asked you about "the resurrection of the dead" and you answered that that he HAD NOT YET attained to something.

Yet I am not to understand you to be saying that the "something" that Paul had not attained to was "the resurrection of the dead", which is what I asked you about?

You quote these things as if I said them but I did not.

Quoted what things? How did I misquote you by asking you some questions or by asking you to clarify what you were saying by telling me how you reconciled one passage of scripture with another?   

What I said was, that I thought in that particular verse, Paul was alluding to something like the first resurrection, or the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and that there was something -he said it not me -he had not yet attained to.

Php 3:11  If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Paul was talking about THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

I asked you about THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

You are saying here AGAIN that Paul HAD NOT YET ATTAINED unto whatever it was he was talking about.... which you are now claiming is something else? That Paul was "alluding to something like the first resurrection, or the spirits of righteous men made perfect...."

He was talking about the resurrection of the dead.

So if that was the "something" that he was talking about then why are you now claiming that you never said Paul didn't attain to it and are accusing me of misquoting you? That was the question that I asked; it was the answer that you gave and it is the answer that seem to be giving again now - saying that "he said it not me".

But, as I already point out, Paul said "I count it not"; he said that he continued to strive for it, NOT AS THOUGH HE HAD ALREADY ATTAINED.

That is not the same things (IMO) as him saying that he had not attained unto the resurrection of the dead. It is Paul saying that he counts it not and Paul was telling others (where unto they had ALREADY ATTAINED, as many as BE PREFECT) to walk by the same rule. 

That is something that I did not always notice and something that I feel is important to note and I feel it's significant. I was simply pointing that out to you and asking you to explain how you read the passage in light of that.

So, if you do not need to take the time to read what I really said, what's the point of further discussion. May the Lord bless you, I have no point to prove, I was merely suggesting that there may be some alternatives that are not commonly examined.

I read what you said and I asked you some questions because of it.

When I asked you about Paul not attaining to the resurrection of the dead vs simply not counting it, you said that you read that passage as Paul saying that he HAD NOT ATTAINED unto something.

The something that he was talking about was the resurrection of the dead and the something that I asked you about was the resurrection of the dead. So if you did not answer the question that I asked then you shouldn't be upset with me for assuming that you did and for misunderstanding you because you didn't. Nor should you be accusing me of not actually reading what you said when you, apparently, weren't even answering the question that I asked.

So I was basicly sharing some things I have been considering as possibilities for some of the issues I read in a very interesting thread, but I just am not disposed to debate those possibilities, and I don't think you read my post very carefully before you responded. But hey, thats alright. I just don't want to go there, I'm not saying you shouldn't. Peace, john

I read what you said. Apparently you didn't read my question well enough to know that I was asking about THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, even though that is EXACTLY what I asked you about. But, hey, that ok.

[eaglesway]

Like I said, fruitless

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: If I said I had not attained to the resurrection of the (literal) dead, but I'm pressing on, ect., and I'm standing right in front of you, would that be newsworthy or deserving of a chapter or two on it?

Of course not; it's evident by virtue of the fact I haven't died yet. Just as it's evident to me that Paul was not talking about literal resurrection of a dead body ONLY. My  :2c: Blessings....

[whyiloveitaly.com]

Hi all,
I would like to just say that I have noticed a trend on many threads on TM, and I think there is something to learn from it all.

We all have slightly different takes on the "truth" about various doctrines. (I once heard someone say that he didn't know what anyone believed except himself, and even that wasn't always clear.)

Doctrines and beliefs tend to divide and injure. Only rarely do we "convince" others to see things as we do, and even then, I have a hunch that what we convince others of is not necessarily what we intend to communicate!

What's more, doctrines are limited to the head. They have perhaps no value in terms of manifesting Love. Love goes beyond belief. Love is more important than having the correct doctrine.
It may well be that, when we leave this life, the ONLY thing that will matter will be how much we have shown love and compassion to our fellow beings.

I realize that Love is, in fact, a type of doctrine. Personally, love is something I feel and can speak of. God within me is something I can speak of. But anything outside of my own experience can only be hypothesized.

I just wanted to point out how, oftentimes because of a doctrinal dispute, someone gets hurt. So I ask, is this the Way?

Dunno if anyone else sees this, it's just my  :2c: for today..

Love to all,
Brian

[Beloved Servant]

There may be times when we speak out of our own soul instead of what the Spirit is saying to the Churches and it becomes strange fire.

[reFORMer]

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (Concordant Literal Translation)...
12 Now if Christ is being heralded that He has been roused from among the dead, how are some among you saying that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 Now if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been roused.
14 Now if Christ has not been roused, for naught, consequently, is our heralding, and for naught is your faith.
15 Now we are being found false witnesses also of God, seeing that we testify by God that He rouses Christ, Whom, consequently, He rouses not, if so be that the dead are not being roused.
16 For, if the dead are not being roused, neither has Christ been roused.
17 Now, if Christ has not been roused, vain is your faith -- you are still in your sins!
18 Consequently those also, who are put to repose in Christ, perished.
19 If we are having an expectation in Christ in this life only, more forlorn than all men are we.

And you think this passage it talking about a physical resurrection of a physical body? What about verse 16? Does it not say "if the dead are not BEING roused"? You think that Paul is speaking about some future physical resurrection here?

"Now if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been roused." (1Corinthians 15:13, CLT)

And while the scriptures do speak of "the redemption of our bodies" what is that "redemption" connected to? Is it not "the adoption of sons" and are we not THE BODY of Jesus Christ, after a sprititual truth? And do we not receive "the adoption of sons" when Christ is formed IN US - HERE?

"If we are having an expectation in Christ in this life only, more forlorn than all men are we." (1 Corinthians 15:19, CLT)

And what does it mean when the scriptures say (in relation to "the spiritual body")  that GOD GIVES IT A BODY? You believe this means that that which has long-since decayed and returned to dust (that scripture says PROFITS NOTHING) is going to be "resurrected"?

"And, what you are sowing, you are not sowing the body which shall come to be, but a naked kernel, perchance of wheat or some of the rest.  Yet God is giving it a body according as He wills, and to each of the seeds its own body." (1 Corinthians 15:37-38, CLT)

Just because we are spirit doesn't mean we don't have physical bodies.  It is similar with God.  He is Spirit; but, He has embodiment.  The fullness of the Godhead bodily dwells in Christ according to the Scripture. "We are members of His body, flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones." (Ep 5:30)

The fulness of the Godhead did dwell IN CHRIST (A MAN). Where is that "man" now? Was Christ not made A QUICKENING SPIRIT? Does He not now dwell IN US? How does He do that? Just "figuratively"? He's "really" sitting around somewhere in another world "in" His physical body, rather than "in" THE BODY that "we" are?

Both (sort of...)

This statement is so unlike the nature of Christ.  Pretending to have flesh to get them to believe He was resurrected!?  "They were carnal" you say.  So, God accomodates their carnality by making a deceptive appearance as if He had flesh!?  Guileful Jesus!?

Really??  :mshock:

Can you QUOTE ME as EVER having said ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME that "Jesus was pretending to have flesh"?   :laughing7:

Please also note (immediately above) that He is coming to redeem and resurrect our SOUL, not our body. Our bodies will NOT be resurrected:

Christ is SPIRIT and we will "see Him as He is" and we will be LIKE HIM!!

Christ does not a have a body of flesh and bone – glorified or otherwise. He may have appeared to His disciples in 'the flesh':

But He did this to prove His resurrection and because they were yet carnal, still having doubts:

Seriously, how does one "pretend" to have flesh?  :dontknow:

Did Christ not WALK this earth after His resurrection? Did His disciples not TOUCH HIS BODY OF FLESH AND BONES?

Did He not SAY: "handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have"?  :dontknow:

But He also left this physical realm, did He not?  :thumbsup:

That He has continued to appear in various ways and forms across the centuries is the testimony of many saints.  Oral Roberts said Jesus appeared to him, touched him in his hands and gave him the ministry he has exercised throughout his life.  How often it has been reported, "He appeared at the foot of my bed and I walked out of the hopital that same day?"

I find it easy to just believe in the full placing of our physical nature into what it is to be born of God physically in resurrection, with the liberty of the glory in the physical dimension, full inheritors of authority over all things physical.

First of all, you are trying to correct a bunch of stuff that I specifically said that I do NOT BELIEVE anymore, wherein I also pointed out that there were MANY things that I "missed" at the time that the above was written (though I did not think so or know so at the time).

Secondly, I never said that we will not have physical bodies or live in a physical world. We may very well; but the scriptures DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. We are told NOTHING about what "will be" after this life/world except that we will "forever be with Lord".

That being said, I still do not believe that THIS PHYSICAL BODY that I NOW HAVE is going to one day pop out of a physical grave. The flesh PROFITS NOTHING - it RETURNS TO DUST, from whence it came. How can it both "profit nothing" AND "be resurrected" at some future point in time?

Whatever "spirtiual body" we have is a body that scripture says GOD GIVES US, and to each seed it's own body.  :thumbsup:

Might that body be manifest PHYSICALLY, in a PHYSICAL world? YES!!

It was prophecied that God, "Will not let His holy One see corruption," so the corpse of Jesus that had died on the cross was the material that metamorphosed into the deathless incorruptible body that had yet to ascend to the Father.  Yet, there is a constant ongoing replacement of our physical selves, part of an estimated 13 or so copies that occur in our natural lifespan.  Whether something of the original material of any of our bodies is included in what is resurrected is in many cases unlikely, though I really don't know.  We will no doubt be able to assume various manifestations in the physical as we progress in our life with God, even beyond the duration of this cosmos.

[Chris]

Like I said, fruitless

Discussions are not fruitless; they only become fruitless when people come into them with no real intention of even entering into the discussion taking place in the first place or only do so to prove their own points but are unwilling to examine the views of the others and consider the points that others are making... which might include having to answer some questions in order to facilitate a mutual understanding of varying positions.

Asking questions of someone else isn't a matter of trying to "disprove" their point or "prove' your own; it is usually an attempt to UNDERSTAND ANOTHER POSITION BETTER. Or why even ask ANY questions? Just accuse them of being "wrong", call yourself "right", and call it a day.  :mshock:  

So why enter into a conversation that you either see as fruitless to begin with or you, yourself, make fruitless by refusing to discuss the topic after you've entered into it?  :dontknow:

As far as I know, anyone here can post to any topic that they like. But they can just as easily ignore those topics (or people) that they are not interested in. But no one who doesn't want to discuss the topic of this thread needs to be (or should be, IMHO, even though I am not a moderator here) posting to this thread.

This thread was started so that a discussion I was having with bob that began on another thread could be continued because it was not relevant to the topic of the other thread. Others were welcome to join in, of course, but that was the original intent of the thread - to continue a CIVIL discussion that bob and I were already having elsewhere.

Bob has since left the conversation but others entered into it and I was having a good dialogue with some of them as well.

But if that conversation is now dead and others want to come in making this a "fruitless" discussion, or make it about "other things" then so be it. But please do look in the mirror first and take note of the fact that some people here have been able to have both a civil and productive conversation on this topic, by both asking and answering questions, even if you can't or are unwilling.

So I respectfully request that you and anyone else here who is not interested in discussing THE TOPIC please take your conversation, your false assumptions and your personal judgments elsewhere, as that it what is "fruitless", IMO.

Feel free to think what you want about me or this topic, but WALK ON then, and let those who want to have a conversation with others about this topic do so. Please!

[reFORMer]

It is interesting how we become such instructors in things moral when we feel we've been treated with disdain.

[rosered]

 
 Hi Chrissie and all ,
 I just thought of how    only GOD can call one perfect   beccause He only know the End

  I noted Paul never called himself perfect , though he  claimed others were 
Job never called himself perfect only God DID call Job perfect ...
so alot of how we think has alot of bearing on the out come and overcoming  in Christ Who was and is   always perfect ... as also the Heavenly FATHER Mat 5:48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. 

after reading all of Matt 5 we have a better understanding of what perfect is  , and it is by those  gifts   of  grace the Father  gives that makes one perfect in Christ

  Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 

and its noted that to   the good as well as the perfect gifts 
are from all  types of Trees men are as trees walking in the Spirit of God  ...from above and come down to us in the earth ... Eze 47:12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine. 

Hope this makes sense ......

[Chris]

"Now if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been roused." (1Corinthians 15:13, CLT)

I'm not sure what your point is. Paul was talking about the fact that Christ had already BEEN roused and because of this we should know that "the dead" are BEING roused (because Christ IS risen), right?

So is your point that Paul is only talking about Christ and His resurrection when he said that "the dead" are "being roused"?

"If we are having an expectation in Christ in this life only, more forlorn than all men are we." (1 Corinthians 15:19, CLT)

I'm not sure how that answers my question about the adoption of sons, but surely our hope is not limited to this life only, as so many will die in their sins not having ever known God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. Right?

Both (sort of...)

What does that mean?

Can you QUOTE ME as EVER having said ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME that "Jesus was pretending to have flesh"?   :laughing7:

Please also note (immediately above) that He is coming to redeem and resurrect our SOUL, not our body. Our bodies will NOT be resurrected:

Christ is SPIRIT and we will "see Him as He is" and we will be LIKE HIM!!

Christ does not a have a body of flesh and bone – glorified or otherwise. He may have appeared to His disciples in 'the flesh':

But He did this to prove His resurrection and because they were yet carnal, still having doubts:

And where in all of that did I say that "Jesus was pretending to have flesh"?

You are reading that into what I said yourself. It is nowhere written in anything that I have ever written. Nor have I ever even said, much less thought, what you are trying to claim that I have said. So you are mistaken in thinking or believe that that is what I am saying or have ever said. It's not.

The fact that I do not believe that Christ HAS (right now) a body of flesh and bones but IS SPIRIT and lives IN US does not mean that I don't believe that he EVER HAD a body of flesh and bones, even after His resurrection, or even that I believe that he WILL NEVER AGAIN have a body of flesh and bones. Right now, however, I believe that the Last Adam (Christ) was made A QUICKENING SPIRIT and that he dwells IN US and we are "His flesh and His bones".

That He has continued to appear in various ways and forms across the centuries is the testimony of many saints.  Oral Roberts said Jesus appeared to him, touched him in his hands and gave him the ministry he has exercised throughout his life.  How often it has been reported, "He appeared at the foot of my bed and I walked out of the hopital that same day?"

Lots of people see lots of things, even people being tortures in literal fire in hell. Does that prove that God will, in fact, torment sinners in literal fire or all eternity?

Besides, where have I said that Christ cannot appear to others, even in a body of flesh and bones?  

It was prophecied that God, "Will not let His holy One see corruption," so the corpse of Jesus that had died on the cross was the material that metamorphosed into the deathless incorruptible body that had yet to ascend to the Father.  Yet, there is a constant ongoing replacement of our physical selves, part of an estimated 13 or so copies that occur in our natural lifespan.  Whether something of the original material of any of our bodies is included in what is resurrected is in many cases unlikely, though I really don't know.  We will no doubt be able to assume various manifestations in the physical as we progress in our life with God, even beyond the duration of this cosmos.

I did not deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, reFORMer. Nor do I deny that Christ can appear in a physical body in this physical world. I said myself, even in what you quoted, that Christ can appear in a physical body.

But is it Christ's physical body (alone) that which God did not allow to see corruption? Or might that also be a physical type/shadow of a spiritual truth?

Even we, who are physically alive, are the "corruptible" that must "put on" incorruption and it is not about being "unclothed" (taking off this earthly tabernacle) but about being "clothed upon", according to the scriptures. Right?

So what spiritual truths do the resurrection of Christ's physical body and His physical tomb (which was empty) point to when we compare spiritual things to spiritual?  

[Chris]

  Hi Chrissie and all ,
  I just thought of how    only

Yep... if only!!!   :laughing7:

Me thinks your whole thought didn't get posted?    :grin:

Love ya anyway!!   :girlheart:

So... you were saying.... ?  :icon_flower:

[rosered]

  Hi Chrissie and all ,
  I just thought of how    only

Yep... if only!!!   :laughing7:

Me thinks your whole thought didn't get posted?    :grin:

Love ya anyway!!   :girlheart:

So... you were saying.... ?  :icon_flower:

your right Sis !!  these  touchy buttons on this puter drives mez   nutts!!!!!!!!!!!! :icon_flower:LOL.... It  out  went before finnished  ha ha ha !

[WhiteWings]

Rosey do you work for a support desk?
You just answered a question by saying nothing  :laughing7:
:bowing: (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:tE1XV5EoMZJCoM:http://pics.mediaplazza.com/t_15/64x64/AB_RoseFlower.jpg)

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I just thought she was speaking in tongues  :winkgrin:

[Chris]

:cloud9: I just thought she was speaking in tongues  :winkgrin:

Any interpreters present??  :grin:

(she's edited her post.... going back to "interpret" it now. :laughing7:  )

[Chris]

 Hi Chrissie and all ,
 I just thought of how    only GOD can call one perfect   beccause He only know the End

  I noted Paul never called himself perfect , though he  claimed others were 
Job never called himself perfect only God DID call Job perfect ...
so alot of how we think has alot of bearing on the out come and overcoming  in Christ Who was and is   always perfect ... as also the Heavenly FATHER Mat 5:48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. 

after reading all of Matt 5 we have a better understanding of what perfect is  , and it is by those  gifts   of  grace the Father  gives that makes one perfect in Christ

  Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 

and its noted that to   the good as well as the perfect gifts 
are from all  types of Trees men are as trees walking in the Spirit of God  ...from above and come down to us in the earth ... Eze 47:12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine. 

Hope this makes sense ......

AMEN!!! Rose!! This is (seems to me) connected to bearing witness of oneself.  :shakepoint: (which we cannot do).

Christ bore witness of John the baptist; he did not bear witness of Himself. Not even Christ bore witness of Himself but THE WORKS WHICH HE DID (which were the work OF THE FATHER) bore witness OF HIM.

Paul would not "count" HIMSELF but he had no problem counting and bearing witness of OTHERS.

GOD is our witness!!!

When HE is speaking through others we will know it because we will hear HIM.

His sheep hear HIS VOICE!! Amen?

[rosered]

His sheep hear HIS VOICE!! Amen?

 Amen Chrissie !!  the   Holy Spirit witness is true !!


Jhn 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.  
Jhn 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

 convinced  of that .........IF GODS  SPIRIT  BE IN YOU  YOU  belong  to  Christ !  

 they both  declare this TRUTH ....
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.  

That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.  


1Th 4:7   For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.  


1Th 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.  

[rosered]

:cloud9: I just thought she was speaking in tongues  :winkgrin:

LOL   Thanks guys  WW and Chrissie and Cardinal ...

  hee hee ..........
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

[reFORMer]

His sheep hear HIS VOICE!!

Interpretation of tongues or languages is the gift that makes the Language of God, which is the Word of God, to be apprehended by us.  What God-expressed is, the Holy Spirit makes to be God-impressed-into-us.  As He is the exact reproduction of the Divine nature, "the exact imprint of God's very being" (Hb 1:3, NRSV,) He is being impressed into us by the Holy Spirit to imprint the exact image of the Word Who is the Image and Glory of God into us that we would be a perfect joining.  As, "...the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Co 11:7), so we are His glory.  He is the, radiance or, "effulgence of His Glory" (vs.3, CLT) which is God and we are His splendor.

"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee." (Is 60:1, AV)  "When the Spirit says dance we will dance..." (Song)

[rosered]

well said James ! ReFORMer

  words seem to fail this one many times  but . John 10
The Good Shepherd and His Sheep
   "I tell you the truth, anyone who sneaks over the wall of a sheepfold, rather than going through the gate, must surely be a thief and a robber!

  2 But the one who enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
  3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep recognize his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 After he has gathered his own flock, he walks ahead of them, and they follow him because they know his voice.

5 They won't follow a stranger; they will run from him because they don't know his voice."
6 Those who heard Jesus use this illustration didn't understand what he meant,

  7 so he explained it to them: "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.

8 All who came before me[a] were thieves and robbers. But the true sheep did not listen to them.

9 Yes, I am the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved. They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. 10 The thief's purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.

11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep.

12 A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will abandon the sheep because they don't belong to him and he isn't their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock.

  13 The hired hand runs away because he's working only for the money and doesn't really care about the sheep.

14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, 15 just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep.

16 I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd.

17 "The Father loves me because I sacrifice my life so I may take it back again.

18 No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded."



the glory and praise to God for salvation  though the  Door /gate  Jesus Christ ...........

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Amen guys.......good posts....... :thumbsup: