- This topic has 3,120 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Nick,
Hi KW,
Really?
Do you have a natural deficiency there?
I do not know what you are speaking of but considering the lack of context he seems to be an insult on the person. Please try to make yourself more understandable because I hope that was not your intention.
Nick,
he dug his fingers into her side, tickling her.
It does not mean the woman has a wound or an entry of any type. The context is necessary to determine if the body has been entered. In order to say it means Thomas wanted to put his hand inside of Jesus wounds you have to assume Jesus has wounds for him to put his hand into.
Source: archiveofourown.org
Hi KW,
So you resort to earthly examples to try to explain putting a HAND INTO A HUMAN SIDE?
Is the world your foundation?Nick,
Hi KW,
So you resort to earthly examples to try to explain putting a HAND INTO A HUMAN SIDE?
Is the world your foundation?You’re words sound absurd.
I am showing you how language is used and you respond with a line of nonsense because it challenges your dearly held interpretation of what first Thomas then Jesus said. It is the desires that lead you to make such a response that are of this world and not any human language as Jesus did not come to teach us to speak in the tongues of angels but instead to overcome the desires of this corrupt world.
The bottom line is that “put my hand into his side” does automatically mean the same as “put my hand into the wounds on his side”.
You can claim your interpretation is inspired and so beyond what is actually wrote or you can say that is your opinion but you cannot honestly say that is what is written.
Nick,
Hi KW,
In what way would TICKLING be involved in what Jesus was trying to prove to Thomas?This is a better point though it misses my actual point. My point being that you can put your finger, or anything else, into a person’s side without penetrating their body.
Nick,
It is how the English language is used. The Koine Greek is different as into and onto can be the same word. If you misunderstand what is written then you come up with the wrong message. From what I have heard misunderstandings are fairly common.
Hi KW,
So in what way have you misunderstood the intention of Jesus to overcome the doubts of Thomas?Nick,
Hi KW,
So how would your ideas explain what Jesus was teaching Thomas?Acts 1:3Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
3 to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
He was showing Thomas he was alive after being resurrected. The other thing he was doing at that time according to this passage was speaking of things pertaining to the kingdom of God but I do not see that is the relevant passages.
Hi KW,
Why did he show them his hands and his feet and his side if he only wanted to show them he was alive??
Nick,
It is not real clear in the gospel of John but proving he was alive was one of the two things Acts said he was doing. Luke is clearer as he states:
Luke 24:39Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
So Jesus was proving he not a ghost.
Nick……..you said where does it say spritual dead, tell us what did Jesus mean by this THEN, “LET THE DEAD BURY THE DEAD”. And again, “having eyes to see but see not, having ears to hear but hear not. These are considered spiritually dead. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours……………gene
Hi KW,
You forgot Jn 20 27f
Why did he say to put his hand INTO his side?
To prove he was alive?
It is not the usual way to prove someone is alive is it?
Nick…….No matter how you want to make it come out, God can cause all things he created to perish at any time he chooses to, both now and forever can. The only thing that changes in us is the life force, because it says, it is this mortal body, we now have, that must put on immortality, not another body that must put it on. That is all you have to do is read what Paul and Jesus clearly said, and the way they said it.
Remember how Paul said it, “IT” IS BURIED IN WEAKNESS, “IT” IS RAISE IN POWER. Now ask yourself what is the “IT” that Paul was speaking of, is the “IT” NOT OUR BODIES, where does it say the “IT” is done away with, and a new “IT” IS CREATED. No the word “IT” IS REFERENCING THE SAME BODY THAT WAS BURIED IN WEAKNESS, “IT” IS RAISE IN POWER. COMMON SENSE SHOULD TELL YOU THERE WOULD BE NO NEED OF A RESURECTION OF ANY KIND IF OUR SAME BODIES WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE RESURECTION. JESUS’ DEAD AND RESURECTION IS THE EXACT TYPE OF OUR OWN RESURECTION. OUR VERY OWN RESURECTION IS ILLUSTRATED, BY THE RESURECTION OF JESUS, OUR OLD BODIES ARE REGENERATED INTO HEALTHY AND POWER RENEWED ONES.
Your assumption that Jesus recieved a completely new and different body after his resurection is an assumption, and no where in scrupture verfied. So why do you preach it?, are we to follow your religious assumptions, or look at what happened to Jesus and his body he was raised with as our example of the true resuection.
Another point you may not have considered, THE REASON JESUS KEPT HIS ORIGINAL BODY WAS BECAUSE HE NEVER SINNED, THEREFORE GOD KEPT HIM IN TACT, JUST THE WAY HE WAS, NOT ALLOWING HIS BODY TO SEE CORRUPTION IN THE GRAVE, EVEN THOUGH HE DID DIE FOR THREE DAYS. The same thing could have happened to Adam,and Eve had they not sinned.
Peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
