- This topic has 3,120 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 25 2014,03:44) Hi KW,
“no more to return to corruption,”
Nick,reading your other posts I am not sure where you are going with this one.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 25 2014,03:43) Hi KW,
We do not need scribes to adjust scripture and make it palatable
Nick,I am not one to tell people what they want to hear. The worst I do is not tell them what they do not want to hear. Most of the time I speak without considering what people want to hear.
Nick,
Quote but you say
” You seem to believe he was raised from the dead to return to corruption.”How could you imagine that?
For the reason you believe God resurrection in a body that was still subject to corruption.
Nick,
1 Corinthians 15:12-19
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The Resurrection of the Dead12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died[a] in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Footnotes:1 Corinthians 15:18 Gk fallen asleep
Do you think your teaching is significantly different than those that taught that the dead were not resurrected. In their case they claim to believe Jesus was raised from the dead but that no one else would be. In you case you claim Jesus was raised from the dead still wearing his mortal body while other would be raised wearing their immortal body. Your teaching is that Jesus is not an example of the resurrection.
What you seem to claim is that he changed for corruptible to incorruptible at a time after he was resurrected.
Hi KW,
He was raised in his mortal body to fulfill the sign of Jonah and the prophecies in Ps 2 and those of David shown in acts 2 proving he was the son of God
When he was raised up to heaven he received the promise we await.Hi KW,
The resurrection of Jesus was in two parts and only when he was taken up does it fully resemble that we enjoy when we are taken upHi KW,
Acts 1
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
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:
Acts 13 .31 says he had been with the disciples “many days”
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 25 2014,04:23) Hi KW,
The resurrection of Jesus was in two parts and only when he was taken up does it fully resemble that we enjoy when we are taken up
Nick,You are making things up to justify your beliefs. What you said is not written. What is written is the Jesus was resurrected no more to see corruption he is an example of the resurrection of those that believe. You know Paul teaches us the old body will be planted and the new body will spring up. You know that Jesus' old body was flesh and blood and the body that sprung up was flesh and bone. There is nothing about Jesus having a resurrection that occurred in two parts and it is clear his resurrection was springing from his tomb.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 25 2014,04:17) Hi KW,
He was raised in his mortal body to fulfill the sign of Jonah and the prophecies in Ps 2 and those of David shown in acts 2 proving he was the son of God
When he was raised up to heaven he received the promise we await.
Nick,There is not one Scripture that states Jesus was raised up in his mortal body but it is written that he was raised up to see corruption no more.
That is not one Scripture that says he changed but it is written that the Eleven saw him ascending to be hidden in the clouds.
Quote (kerwin @ May 24 2014,15:48) Mike, Quote He wanted to see and touch the actual wounds from Jesus' crucifixion – in order to believe it was truly Jesus, and that he was truly raised from the dead. Some translations claim he did while most say it was the imprint, print, marks, etc. of the nails. I found one that said scars. I looked at the original language and imprint is most likely right. Even though some translated it wound I saw no where else the same word is translated wound but I did see other words the more often translated wound. stigma may have been better as Paul uses it to speak of Jesus' marks in Galatians 6:17.
Hi Kerwin,I wasn't aware you didn't like the translation of “wounds”. My point had nothing to do with “wound” versus “imprint”.
My point is: No matter what you want to call the “marks” Thomas touched, it is clear that these marks were made on Jesus' OLD body.
A newly formed body from God would not contain the past marks from Jesus' OLD body. I mean, why would God give Jesus a wonderful NEW body that was already damaged and scarred from things that happened to his OLD body?
So the fact that there were marks on Jesus at all tell us that he was resurrected in the same exact body in which he died.
Quote (kerwin @ May 24 2014,16:51) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 25 2014,04:23) Hi KW,
The resurrection of Jesus was in two parts and only when he was taken up does it fully resemble that we enjoy when we are taken up
Nick,You are making things up to justify your beliefs. What you said is not written.
It IS written, Kerwin.You just don't want to believe it.
Jesus WAS raised up as a flesh being with the same wounds/scars (whatever) that he had at the time of his death.
But the last Adam BECAME a life-giving spirit. He is no longer that same flesh being with scars, because flesh cannot enter, see, or inherit the kingdom of God.
All these things are written, but you can't seem to discern enough from the written information to find your way from point A to point B.
What we know is:
1. He WAS in the same body after the resurrection.
2. He is no longer flesh in heaven.
What happened between #1 and #2? Scripture might not explicitly say Jesus was “transformed” upon his ascension to heaven…… but what's the other option? Scripture DOES talk about the “transformation” of lowly earthly bodies to the kind of glorious body Jesus now has, right? (Phil 3:20-21)
Oh, and there's also the fact that John and others saw Jesus “as he was after the resurrection”, but they didn't ever see him “as he NOW is”.
Also, don't forget the transfiguration, Kerwin. What was the purpose for allowing the disciples to see Jesus in such a brilliant and glorified state of being? All for naught?
Was that the same brilliance that blinded Paul on the road to Damascus? I think so.
Quote (kerwin @ May 23 2014,14:38) Mike, I did post what I could but the link has a good table and I am not sure how to post a table so it looks like a table and not a pile of words.
The perfect tense of ascend is past tense and speaks of an ongoing result of the action.
For example “The grass has grown taller” is equivalent to the perfect tense and tells us not only that the grass has grown taller but the it is still taller. A simple past on the other has such as the grass grew taller tells us the grass has grown taller but it may or may not still be taller.
So in short anyone that has ascended to heaven would still be in heaven. Translators like to use “but” or “except” which implies Jesus is one of those that ascended to heaven. If you go by that he is currently in heaven at the time he was speaking to Nicodemus on earth.
And what POINT would you like to make with all that mumbo-jumbo, Kerwin?Is the perfect tense ALWAYS used in the exact same way? Are there exceptions? Of course there are – because you and I have looked into this stuff before.
But it doesn't really matter until you show me what you are trying to PROVE with this information.
At which point is my understanding wrong BECAUSE OF this information?
Quote (kerwin @ May 23 2014,14:57) No real support for that hypothesis but it sounds reasonable.
It's reasonable because God clearly said no man could see His face and live………. yet men have described God's appearance in visions.Again, you must learn to get from point A to point B when the obvious isn't explicitly spelled out for you. I know you are smart enough to do this……… when it suits you.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2014,06:14) Quote (kerwin @ May 21 2014,11:29) Mike, I instead believe that no one mean both angels and men and that they do not see God because he is invisible. Neither the eyes of a body nor of the soul can see God as he has no visual similitude.
I realize that is what you believe, Kerwin.You just won't be able to use John 1:18 as a “proof” for that belief, since I've shown you another use of the Greek word “oudeis”, in which it is clear that ONLY human beings are meant.
Nor have you ever shown anything that would refute my belief that God does have a form, and is visible to spirit beings like angels.
So, where does that leave us? I have many scriptures that describe God's face, hair, legs, feet, hands, etc. I have scriptures that describe Him sitting on a throne right next to Jesus. I have logic that says: If Jesus has a form and sits on a throne, then why would the God who sits on a throne right beside Jesus NOT have a form?
You choose to believe those descriptions are metaphorical – and I take them literally.
It seems we are once again at an impasse.
Mike
I believe that in heaven no one sits around , and that when it says that God sits on a throne , it would mean that he sits as the main power among those assembled , and when his son sits with him , means that he sits with the same powers , but slitly lowerWhen a king does not sit on his throne it means he is not sitting in his power as a king,
Quote (terraricca @ May 24 2014,22:45) Mike
I believe that in heaven no one sits around , and that when it says that God sits on a throne , it would mean that he sits as the main power among those assembled , and when his son sits with him , means that he sits with the same powers , but slitly lower
You are not alone in that belief, Pierre.I personally have no reason to think that way. If the scripture says God sits on a throne beside Jesus, who is also sitting on his own throne, I have no reason to understand it any other way than the way it was written.
But there are a lot of people who see it the way you do.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 26 2014,02:21) Quote (terraricca @ May 24 2014,22:45) Mike
I believe that in heaven no one sits around , and that when it says that God sits on a throne , it would mean that he sits as the main power among those assembled , and when his son sits with him , means that he sits with the same powers , but slitly lower
You are not alone in that belief, Pierre.I personally have no reason to think that way. If the scripture says God sits on a throne beside Jesus, who is also sitting on his own throne, I have no reason to understand it any other way than the way it was written.
But there are a lot of people who see it the way you do.
mIKEit is Christ that sits where his father tells him to sit not himself ;(all powers have been given to him by his father )
God does not share his glory with anyone ,but anyone can be glorified by glorifying God in his ways just like Christ did .
those are the two major bases of that believe
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 25 2014,09:40) Quote (kerwin @ May 23 2014,14:38) Mike, I did post what I could but the link has a good table and I am not sure how to post a table so it looks like a table and not a pile of words.
The perfect tense of ascend is past tense and speaks of an ongoing result of the action.
For example “The grass has grown taller” is equivalent to the perfect tense and tells us not only that the grass has grown taller but the it is still taller. A simple past on the other has such as the grass grew taller tells us the grass has grown taller but it may or may not still be taller.
So in short anyone that has ascended to heaven would still be in heaven. Translators like to use “but” or “except” which implies Jesus is one of those that ascended to heaven. If you go by that he is currently in heaven at the time he was speaking to Nicodemus on earth.
And what POINT would you like to make with all that mumbo-jumbo, Kerwin?Is the perfect tense ALWAYS used in the exact same way? Are there exceptions? Of course there are – because you and I have looked into this stuff before.
But it doesn't really matter until you show me what you are trying to PROVE with this information.
At which point is my understanding wrong BECAUSE OF this information?
Mike,I do not remember any and some of the translators seem satisfied with those options as that is how the one I remember translated both verbs. The source did not mention any exceptions but it is only one source.
I did give you a source link and it is up to you to evidence that reveals a flaw in my reasoning instead of discounting it because you seem to remember a flaw.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
