- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 2 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2014,18:06)
Weymouth New Testament
But this I tell you, brethren: our mortal bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor will what is perishable inherit what is imperishable.International Standard Version
Brothers, this is what I mean: Mortal bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and what decays cannot inherit what does not decay.Both of these expert witnesses state mortal bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God and yet you toss them out as true translations because they do not fit your idea of what 1 Corinthians 15:50 means. You present no evidence to disprove them but they do not agree with the doctrine you have chosen to embrace.
The word “mortal” is not in the Greek scripture, Kerwin. But if your “expert witnesses” understand “flesh” to mean “mortal”, and our future bodies will NOT BE “mortal”, there is a strong implication that those future bodies will not be “flesh” either.Besides……. flesh, blood AND bone are all “mortal”. All three of those things decay. So even if you insist on your expert's addition of the word “mortal” in 1 Cor 15:50, you still can't say, “Well, only the blood part of the human body is mortal, and therefore the flesh and bone parts CAN inherit the kingdom of God – because those parts don't decay.”
Well, I guess you CAN say it, but most people will probably think you're off your rocker.
Also, I don't need to present any evidence to disprove your translations above, because they have ADDED words into the text. Why would I need to “disprove” words that weren't even in the original teaching? Nor would I even try to disprove them anyway, since I agree with them that our mortal flesh bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2014,18:06) You want it to mean all flesh so you say it means flesh and bone bodies when it does not state nor are they included in the words flesh and blood; especially if you take the later literally.
Kerwin, you'd be surprised at how many of the phrases “flesh and blood” in the OT are literally “BONE and flesh” in the Hebrew text. The phrases mean the same thing.The scholars who translated “BONE and flesh” as “flesh and BLOOD” knew this. They altered it to “flesh and BLOOD” in our Bibles, because although the phrases mean the same thing, we rarely, if ever, use “flesh and BONE” in English.
Compare:
2 Samuel 19:13 NIV
And say to Amasa, ‘Are you not my own flesh and blood?2 Samuel 19:13 KJV
And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh?Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2014,18:06) You want it to mean enter when instead it states inherit.
“Enter” is clearly implied by Paul, and explicitly STATED by Jesus in John 3. And in Jesus' teaching, only “flesh” is mentioned, so you can't weasel out of it by saying, “Flesh and BONE is okay, as long as it's not flesh and BLOOD!”Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2014,18:06) In short 1 Corinthians does not say or mean what you have insisted it does and yet you refuse to admit it.
It teaches EXACTLY what I've been saying, Kerwin. And I came to that understanding from the written word of God.Paul says we have already borne one kind of body, and that we will bear a different kind of body after the resurrection. The body we have all borne is flesh, Kerwin. So what kind of “DIFFERENT THAN FLESH” bodies do those in heaven have? They have SPIRIT bodies, just like their God who created them.
But the real bottom line is this: You might not INTERPRET these scriptures the same way that I, and MILLIONS OF OTHERS, interpret them……. but you have no cause to say that my interpretation is “not based on the word of God”. Because it is clear that millions of others also understand those scriptures the same way that I do.
Understand? You don't have to agree with our understanding; but you can't possibly claim that our understanding isn't based on the word of God.
Besides, you should know by now that my doctrine comes SOLEY from the scriptures that I research over and over on a daily basis here. I am at odds with the “status quo” more times than not around here, BECAUSE I base my understanding directly on the word of God, and not popularity with others.
Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2014,18:13) Jesus is the exact image of God because he does what he sees God doing and says what he sees God say. It is not about physical appearance………..
In Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word is “charakter”, Kerwin.Do you know what a “charakter” is?
Quote (carmel @ May 13 2014,14:35) Quote You have a right to your own understanding as well. Mike,
I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WERE TO PROOF OTHERWISE WITH SCRIPTURES!
I do that all the time, Charles.Here's a couple for you:
Luke 1:32
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.Luke 8:28
When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!”According to those scriptures, is Jesus the Most High God? Or the SON OF the Most High God?
He can't be both, Charles.
These are the scriptures I believe. I have no interest in the unscriptural mumbo-jumbo you try to preach around here.
Quote (kerwin @ May 13 2014,11:13) Quote (jammin @ May 13 2014,05:54) Quote (kerwin @ May 13 2014,10:45) Quote (jammin @ May 12 2014,10:50) Quote (kerwin @ May 10 2014,05:05) Jammin, Do you understand this verse?
John 14:9
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
yes. the meaning of the verse is that HE IS THE EXACT IMAGE OF HIS FATHER.Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
hath seen the Father; the perfections which are in him also; for the same that are in me are in him, and the same that are in him are in me: I am the very image of him, and am possessed of the same nature, attributes, and glory, that he is; so that he that sees the one, sees the other:what about you? do you understand john 1.1 that Christ was the Word and he was God?
i know you dont because you have your own doctrine.
Jammin,Gill is using many vague terms and his meaning is open to interpretation. More than likely there is more context in his further words than the few you supplied.
I very much doubt that Gill believed that Jesus' outward appearance was the same as God's. God is revealed in Jesus' words and actions just as Jesus is seen in those believers that are mature. In this was the nature of God is revealed in those that believe.
gill is a bible scholar.In 1748, Gill was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity by the University of Aberdeen. He was a profound scholar and a prolific author. His most important works are:
The Doctrine of the Trinity Stated and Vindicated (London, 1731)
The Cause of God and Truth (4 parts, 1735–8), a retort to Daniel Whitby's Five Points
An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols., 1746–8), which with his Exposition of the Old Testament (6 vols., 1748–63) forms his magnum opus
A Collection of Sermons and Tracts[1]
A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents (1767)[1]
A Body of Doctrinal Divinity (1767)
A Body of Practical Divinity (1770).what about you kerwin? you are nothing. you have nothing to offer just like the other false teachers here.
you offer stories and fairy tale doctrine but cant be read in the bible.you are a clown. hahaha
Jammin,What is knowledge without the Spirit?
Since Gill is so knowledgeable then perhaps he should be more clear. Of course he might be if I read more of what he is saying.
Jesus is the exact image of God because he does what he sees God doing and says what he sees God say. It is not about physical appearance or being the same kind as God.
oh yeah? hahahathat is the kind of reasoning from a creature who has the form of beast. hahahah
gill is a normal person and he thinks properly. honestly, it is my first time to hear a person saying that he has the form of BEAST and not HUMAN nature. hahahah
that is the most ridiculous words i have ever heard. hahahah
you need a psychiatrist kerwin.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,12:02) Quote (jammin @ May 12 2014,17:56) what is your form or nature?
Which one are you asking about, jammin?The words mean two different things.
form also means nature.nature is a synonym of essence and essence is a synonym of form .
do you understand?now to make it simple, what is your nature?
Quote (jammin @ May 13 2014,20:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,12:02) Quote (jammin @ May 12 2014,17:56) what is your form or nature?
Which one are you asking about, jammin?The words mean two different things.
form also means nature.nature is a synonym of essence and essence is a synonym of form .
do you understand?now to make it simple, what is your nature?
Show me from a thesaurus.From Dictionary.com:
Synonyms for form
design
fashion
mode
model
pattern
plan
scheme
structure
style
system
anatomy
appearance
articulation
cast
configuration
conformation
construction
contour
cut
die
embodiment
figure
formation
framework
mold
outline
profile
silhouette
skeletonI don't see “nature” or “essence” there….. do you?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,08:20) Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2014,18:13) Jesus is the exact image of God because he does what he sees God doing and says what he sees God say. It is not about physical appearance………..
In Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word is “charakter”, Kerwin.Do you know what a “charakter” is?
Mike,Thank you. That is interesting. It makes you wonder why some translators do not use the word character.
Biblehub states the answer to your question is:
Quote 5481 xaraktḗr – properly, an engraving; (figuratively) an exact impression (likeness) which also reflects inner character. [5481 /xaraktḗr was originally a tool (used for engraving) and then came to mean “a die” (“mould”). Finally it stood for a stamp or impress used on a coin or seal (see H, 368). In each case, the stamp conveyed the reality behind the image.]
The Greek fathers (ad 100 -500) used 5481 /xaraktḗr (“the ultimate radiance”) of the supreme effulgence of Christ, showing forth His glory as the second Person of the eternal Godhead (Heb 1:3).
Whenever someone makes arguments like this I get suspicious. It sounds to much like a legal argument.
Jammin,
Quote you need a psychiatrist kerwin. Why do you choose to cover your lack of knowledge with insults? Have you not heard the proverb “It is better for a man to keep his mouth closed and to look a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Mike,
Quote The word “mortal” is not in the Greek scripture, Kerwin. But if your “expert witnesses” understand “flesh” to mean “mortal”, and our future bodies will NOT BE “mortal”, there is a strong implication that those future bodies will not be “flesh” either. Besides……. flesh, blood AND bone are all “mortal”. All three of those things decay. So even if you insist on your expert's addition of the word “mortal” in 1 Cor 15:50, you still can't say, “Well, only the blood part of the human body is mortal, and therefore the flesh and bone parts CAN inherit the kingdom of God – because those parts don't decay.”
So you are accusing these experts of being off their rocker or least seems to be the case as they make the same argument I do when you say most people will think I am off my rocker. Of course you may disagree with those people who think such things.
I see no evidence you bothered finding out why they have interpreted flesh and blood to mean mortal body. Instead you chose not to look for a good argument why they are in error.
Mike,
Quote
“Enter” is clearly implied by Paul, and explicitly STATED by Jesus in John 3. And in Jesus' teaching, only “flesh” is mentioned, so you can't weasel out of it by saying, “Flesh and BONE is okay, as long as it's not flesh and BLOOD!”I assume you mean John 3:5 which has a meaning that a man cannot enter the kingdom after judgement day provide we are going by your interpretation which I disagree with. It is not speaking of the present heaven.
John 3:5
King James Version (KJV)5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Mike,
Quote Kerwin, you'd be surprised at how many of the phrases “flesh and blood” in the OT are literally “BONE and flesh” in the Hebrew text. The phrases mean the same thing. The scholars who translated “BONE and flesh” as “flesh and BLOOD” knew this. They altered it to “flesh and BLOOD” in our Bibles, because although the phrases mean the same thing, we rarely, if ever, use “flesh and BONE” in English.
Compare:
2 Samuel 19:13 NIV
And say to Amasa, ‘Are you not my own flesh and blood?2 Samuel 19:13 KJV
And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh?I realize that sometimes both flesh and bone and flesh and blood refer to genealogy but I have doubts you will find many who agree that a human cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Do a Google search and let me know the results.
Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,16:49) Jammin, Quote you need a psychiatrist kerwin. Why do you choose to cover your lack of knowledge with insults? Have you not heard the proverb “It is better for a man to keep his mouth closed and to look a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
why do you choose not to accept the truth even if it is written?did you ask yourself that maybe you have a mind problem? why cant you accept that you have the form of HUMAN?
a man created by God has no form of beast. that is not God's creation. you fool people.Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,14:56) Quote (jammin @ May 13 2014,20:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,12:02) Quote (jammin @ May 12 2014,17:56) what is your form or nature?
Which one are you asking about, jammin?The words mean two different things.
form also means nature.nature is a synonym of essence and essence is a synonym of form .
do you understand?now to make it simple, what is your nature?
Show me from a thesaurus.From Dictionary.com:
Synonyms for form
design
fashion
mode
model
pattern
plan
scheme
structure
style
system
anatomy
appearance
articulation
cast
configuration
conformation
construction
contour
cut
die
embodiment
figure
formation
framework
mold
outline
profile
silhouette
skeletonI don't see “nature” or “essence” there….. do you?
why dont you go back to school and study synonyms?http://thesaurus.com/browse/essence
essence synonym
– form
——-
you need to study more
Quote (jammin @ May 14 2014,19:56) Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,16:49) Jammin, Quote you need a psychiatrist kerwin. Why do you choose to cover your lack of knowledge with insults? Have you not heard the proverb “It is better for a man to keep his mouth closed and to look a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
why do you choose not to accept the truth even if it is written?did you ask yourself that maybe you have a mind problem? why cant you accept that you have the form of HUMAN?
a man created by God has no form of beast. that is not God's creation. you fool people.
Jammin,I am not looking for a conversation from you where you choose not to seek knowledge. Lack of knowledge is nothing to feel shame about. The refusal to seek knowledge is something to feel shame about.
You sit that and there and try to claim form and image are synonyms even though you should know better. If you do not know then seek to find out. This should be that important and more to you.
You also choose to cast unfounded accusations against those who have done so. Sometimes they have also stooped seeking but a different level but it is always wise to test what your hear and as well as what you believe.
Wakeup,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote Good question. The answer is because all that has to be written down for us.
If the stones stayed closed and locked; then Mary and others would not have experienced what they saw.
Therefore not written down.
The broken chain lock is evidence.
The stone door open,is evidence.
The cloth left inside is evidence.
The body missing is evidence,for us also.Wakeup,
I WASN’T ARGUING REGARDING THOSE EVIDENCES BY ALL MEANS, IN FACT THROIUGH THEM, AND THE WAY IT HAPPENED I AM CONVINCED THAT JESUS WAS A HUMAN BEING WHEN HE RESURRECTED!
THAT WAS MY POINT!
BUT DO NOT THINK THAT JESUS WAS IN A WAY CAPABLE OF COMING OUT THROUGH WALLS AND IN ORDER TO FURNISH US WITH THOSE EVIDENCES,HE HANGED ON AND WAITED FOR THE ANGEL TO REMOVE THE STONE!
EVREYTHING GENUINELY HAPPENED AS IT WAS WRITTEN, BUT IT IS OUR INTEREST TO ANALYZE WHAT WAS WRITTEN, TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH, AND THAT’S WHAT I’M INTERESTED IN!
BECAUSE ALTHOUGH AS YOU SAID IT WAS WRITTEN, IT IS STILL A MYSTERY WHAT ACTUALLY THROUGH WHAT WAS WRITTEN WHAT THE TRUTH IS!
AND IF THE TRUTH COULD INTERFERE IN A WAY MIKE,
HE SIMPLY CALLS IT ALL SORTS, EXCEPT TRUTH!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
mikeboll64,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote I have no interest in the unscriptural mumbo-jumbo you try to preach around here. Mike,
UNSCRIPTURAL MUMBO-JUMBO WOULD BE WHAT YOU SAID REGARDING JESUS' SPIRITUAL STATE IF YOU DON'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION!
WHAT CONVINCED YOU SO MUCH THAT MADE YOU BELIEVE THAT HE NEVER HAD HIS SPIRITUAL BODY WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (kerwin @ May 13 2014,23:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,08:20) Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2014,18:13) Jesus is the exact image of God because he does what he sees God doing and says what he sees God say. It is not about physical appearance………..
In Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word is “charakter”, Kerwin.Do you know what a “charakter” is?
Mike,Thank you. That is interesting. It makes you wonder why some translators do not use the word character.
Biblehub states the answer to your question is:
Quote 5481 xaraktḗr – properly, an engraving; (figuratively) an exact impression (likeness) which also reflects inner character. [5481 /xaraktḗr was originally a tool (used for engraving) and then came to mean “a die” (“mould”). Finally it stood for a stamp or impress used on a coin or seal (see H, 368). In each case, the stamp conveyed the reality behind the image.]
The Greek fathers (ad 100 -500) used 5481 /xaraktḗr (“the ultimate radiance”) of the supreme effulgence of Christ, showing forth His glory as the second Person of the eternal Godhead (Heb 1:3).
Whenever someone makes arguments like this I get suspicious. It sounds to much like a legal argument.
I agree with your last point. It's easy for people like you and me to see when a Trinitarian “scholar” is simply talking smack in an effort to cause the more gullible people into believing the Son OF God IS the very God he is the Son OF.You and I are aware of their tricks, and therefore don't fall for that garbage they spew.
But the definition I supersized is the correct one for Hebrews 1:3.
A “charakter” was an engraving tool which was used to stamp symbols into metal. You might remember some of the old time movies that ended with a close up of a hand holding such a tool, and stamping Roman numerals on a piece of metal. I can't remember the name of the studio which ended their movies that way – but maybe you remember seeing them anyway.
The thing is that both the tool, AND the impression that tool made in the metal, is called a “charakter”.
So from the context, and from knowing that Jesus came FROM the Father, we know that the writer of Hebrews was talking about Jesus being the impression left behind by the tool. (The Father is obviously the tool that made the mark.)
If the tool is engraved with “XXL”, for instance, the mark made with the tool will be an equivalent “XXL”.
So Hebrews 1:3, in conjunction with Colossians 1:15, tells us that Jesus is the “spitting image” of the God we humans cannot see with our flesh eyes.
Jesus is the VISIBLE image of the INVISIBLE God. He is the exact “charakter” of that God. In other words, Jesus looks just like His and our God looks.
(As a side note, the translators probably didn't use the word “character” because, although the English word “character” came from the Greek word, the Greek word refers to the visible outward appearance of a thing – and not to the inner traits or “characteristics” of that thing.)
Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,00:30) Mike, Quote The word “mortal” is not in the Greek scripture, Kerwin. But if your “expert witnesses” understand “flesh” to mean “mortal”, and our future bodies will NOT BE “mortal”, there is a strong implication that those future bodies will not be “flesh” either. Besides……. flesh, blood AND bone are all “mortal”. All three of those things decay. So even if you insist on your expert's addition of the word “mortal” in 1 Cor 15:50, you still can't say, “Well, only the blood part of the human body is mortal, and therefore the flesh and bone parts CAN inherit the kingdom of God – because those parts don't decay.”
So you are accusing these experts of being off their rocker or least seems to be the case as they make the same argument I do when you say most people will think I am off my rocker. Of course you may disagree with those people who think such things.
I see no evidence you bothered finding out why they have interpreted flesh and blood to mean mortal body. Instead you chose not to look for a good argument why they are in error.
I don't disagree with those translations, Kerwin. So why would I try to find fault with them?The point is that flesh, blood, and bone bodies are MORTAL. We all know this.
The bodies in which the dead are raised are NOT mortal. We also know this.
So I understand those translations to be saying that we will be raised with a body that ISN'T mortal, and therefore ISN'T flesh, blood, or bone.
I agree with them. We will not be raised with a mortal flesh, blood, and bone body – but with an immortal spiritual (“made of spirit”) body.
I highly doubt the guys who did those translations agree with you that our “mortal flesh body” will die, but we will be raised with an “IMMORTAL flesh body”. It is THAT belief that causes me to say you're off your rocker. And I think you stand alone with that belief, because I've never read any scripture, or any commentary, that spoke of “immortal spiritual flesh bodies”.
Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,00:37) Mike, Quote
“Enter” is clearly implied by Paul, and explicitly STATED by Jesus in John 3. And in Jesus' teaching, only “flesh” is mentioned, so you can't weasel out of it by saying, “Flesh and BONE is okay, as long as it's not flesh and BLOOD!”I assume you mean John 3:5 which has a meaning that a man cannot enter the kingdom after judgement day provide we are going by your interpretation which I disagree with. It is not speaking of the present heaven.
John 3:5
King James Version (KJV)5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
I'm not sure what your words are actually saying – or where you found the words “new heaven” or “present heaven” in John 3.But what that passage teaches is that FLESH can neither see, nor enter, the kingdom of God.
Those who wish to enter that kingdom must be born again from above – by something OTHER THAN flesh – before being able to see or enter that heavenly kingdom. They must be born of “spirit and water” – AS OPPOSED TO “flesh”.'
Get it? Something OTHER THAN flesh.
Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,00:45) Mike, Quote Kerwin, you'd be surprised at how many of the phrases “flesh and blood” in the OT are literally “BONE and flesh” in the Hebrew text. The phrases mean the same thing. The scholars who translated “BONE and flesh” as “flesh and BLOOD” knew this. They altered it to “flesh and BLOOD” in our Bibles, because although the phrases mean the same thing, we rarely, if ever, use “flesh and BONE” in English.
Compare:
2 Samuel 19:13 NIV
And say to Amasa, ‘Are you not my own flesh and blood?2 Samuel 19:13 KJV
And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh?I realize that sometimes both flesh and bone and flesh and blood refer to genealogy but I have doubts you will find many who agree that a human cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Do a Google search and let me know the results.
I didn't find too many results, Kerwin. But here is one place where someone asked the question.Notice that the answer designated as “Best Answer” says:
The earth was made for man and man was made for the earth. Only a very few humans have been bought from the earth and they will have to be resurrected as spirit beings or changed in an instant before they can go there.
I concur. But if you want to believe that Jesus and the angels in heaven are flesh beings – I can't stop you. Is there really any sense in dragging this out further?
I made a bunch of wonderful points using scriptures in our private discussion of this topic. You balked at all of them – always coming up with a nonsensical way to understand the words, while pretending you couldn't even SEE the most sensible way those words could be understood.
For example:
1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.The SENSIBLE understanding of these words is:
1. We have NOT yet seen Christ as he is now.
2. But when Christ appears, we will finally be able to see him as he is.
3. At that time, we will also be like he is.
4. But, because none of those first three things have happened yet, we don't yet know what we will be.
The very LEAST anyone should be able to take from this verse is that even those who DID see Jesus on earth after the resurrection, DID NOT see Jesus as he now is.
The last time John saw Jesus, John was NOT seeing Jesus as he now is. That means Jesus now has a DIFFERENT appearance than the way he looked the last time John saw him.
But again, you will just balk at this most sensible understanding of John's words. So is it really worth it to carry on with this discussion?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
