TLC

Given that's not an answer to (and doesn't even come close to addressing) my question, evidently you've never considered the possibility that I asked... and either don't have (and can't think of) an answer, or don't comprehend the question.

What if that were never a part of God's original design or intent? (IMO, it wasn't.) How would (or does) that change your view of what the original sin might have been?

here's another thought for you: that which is born of the flesh (think, in Bethlehem) is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit (think, resurrection day) is spirit.

Nope. I never said (and don't think) that. (And any effort to move it over to that comes across as little more than setting up the ole' straw man punching bag. Seriously? After all that I've posted in various places around here - that I'm sure you've read at least once - you really think I'd think like that?) Well, I've actually said or alluded to it some number of times already. Whatever it is, it is clearly and plainly marked out as being "brand new." Never been before. First (and only one thus far) of its kind. "Birthed" (or begotten) of God for the very first time on "this day" of the resurrection. It's stunning. So "mind numbing" that most simply pass over or miss the significance of it.

in the sense of "This day have I begotten thee." Do you suppose that the life in the resurrected Christ was the very same life that was in the blood (which was poured out at Calgary)? If so, why is there no mention of there being any blood in his new body after resurrection? If not, what happened to that life that was in the blood? And where did the life that replaced or superseded it come from?

Probably true. It's probably also true that people are naturally inclined towards thinking if they just try to be good, or do the best they can, that it will be "good enough" before a good and righteous judge at the end of life. But you know, how different do you really think that is from what Cain might have thought when he brought what he had before the Lord in Genesis 4:3?

Sonship, but in what sense? (seems you left that part off...) The language of Acts 13:33 actually appears to be quite clear in this regard, in my opinion. It calls to mind a specific prophecy that was written in the second psalm (Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ) and tells us the exactly event (i.e., in resurrection day) which fulfilled that very prophecy . But, you obviously don't agree. So, it appears that we have arrived at an impasse... as this, for me, is an irreducible belief. For I have, for a long time now (and far too many years), seen the simplicity and beauty of it fit perfectly with all else that I know and understand of scripture...

I wasn't so much interested in how he did it as I was in your thoughts on how or why it was any different from what he did after his resurrection. Which, I supposed, would help reveal what, if any, change you think did (or didn't) occur as a result of his resurrection. For the record, I have no issue whatsoever with believing any of the miraculous things before his resurrection. Nor do I have any issue believing what he did after his resurrection, regardless of whether they do or don't fit into that exact same category. The only difference (for me) that it makes, is the (rather stunning, mind numbing) change that I believe happened at his resurrection. Mind numbing... because of how it is so easily and so often subdued, skipped over, or completely missed. Quite familiar. And yourself... by any chance are you as familiar with this line (and its meaning), from Acts 13:33? 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. Well then, that's no surprise. Like it probably doesn't surprise you that I don't... as I see his birth and life before Calgary being like (though, not exactly) that of Adam, and I relate his becoming (the only) "begotten" specifically to the day of his resurrection and his being the firstborn (and only one thus far) raised (such as he was) from the dead. After which he most certainly is "one of a kind." In light of that, and from this perspective, he's passed on... from what Adam may have once been, unto a new, never been before, second man (aka, "the Lord from heaven.")

Oh yeah - I think there was quite a significant change - in ways that I can’t even imagine! ... Then why suppose any change is "significant" if you (apparently) don't know, can't guess, or can't even imagine what changed? (sorry to be so blunt, but certain things you said just don't fit together or make any sense, and I'm not sure of any better way to point it out to you...) I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you probably accept (or believe in) some sort of pre-existence of Christ. Yes? (I'm trying to figure out how you might have arrived at this "hybrid" idea of Jesus Christ in your mind, and what that might actually mean to you ...)

So how is going through walls any different than walking on water? I don't really see that you're making any distinction by pointing at this superstring theory you mentioned.

Okay, seems I need to clarify something. When I spoke of a (spiritual) reality "beyond" the reality that is common to all men, I don't think (and didn't mean) that it is on some far off ethereal place in heaven or anything apart from or removed from what is common to all. The context of the statement concerns itself with how reality (whatever it is) is perceived. So, it's not necessarily "a different direction" that you went in... maybe just a significantly less complicated one. For instance, I don't see or think or speak of the world around us in 3 (or 4) dimensional terms. Generally speaking, thoughts of it in my mind are molded into "a view"... which seems to be best stated as "a picture" of what is real. Likewise, regardless of whether "the spiritual perspective" encompasses 6, 8 or ten (pick any number you want) dimensions, it still makes sense that they would all be molded together into "a picture" of what is real. What I don't see, is some number of other ways to bring it all together, or to see or think of it (i.e., reality.) Nor am I sure. Nor do I believe it was through some "trance-like" state. And while I don't picture the men themselves as being perfect, I can picture their initial revealing of it being exactly how God intended for it to be revealed (regardless of any other conditions or circumstances surrounding the man at the time.) Then what (if any) change do you think happened in (or with) his resurrection?

If so, then perhaps relativity is also a problem inherent in everything else. Because all reality is perceptual. Upon detection, we define energy (in whatever form it exists) and then respond to our own definitions of it. If it's not detectable, it isn't definable, so it's concluded that it doesn't exist. However, at sub atomic levels, nothing is solid. So, one can speculate that the common (or literal) reality that we experience is an illusion. (Albeit, a very persistent one, according to Einstein.)

Apparently you missed the point of my post. But, no worries. (Tends to happen more when there's an agenda involved.) I don't care to get any deeper into it.

So from your perspective, there's no difference... yet, perhaps you might consider that from my perspective, there is (and has been, for over 40 years.) Long ago (before twi) I came to the realization that whatever is spiritual: (1) is spiritual, (2) is not physical, and (3) is a reality beyond the reality that is common to all men. Of course, not only did that stir a certain hunger to learn more, it also established an "irreducible" premise within me. But, if that is wrong... then I suppose I might nearly well be in that category of men "most miserable" in this life. That said, perhaps I'm inclined to see certain things a bit differently. For instance, although I'm not likely to ever speak out about it, within my mind I would probably not agree with someone that said, "The bible is the word of God." Because in my mind, the word of God is something spiritual, whereas the bible is something physical. Therefore, I would think and say, "The bible is the revealed word of God." However, I said "probably not," as there are times when I think I understand what they are intending to say, rather than focusing on what they actually said... and there are enough times in conversations with others where I myself more simply and casually refer to the bible as being "the Word of God." Yet, in the back of my mind, it's a distinction that is never very far away or hard to make, should the need for it ever arise. Furthermore, the relationship between "the Word of God" (which is spiritual) and God (who is spirit) is such that if we think or see God as being perfect (i.e., inerrant), then so is His word. What remains, then, is how any of us think that which is both (1) invisible and (2) inherently perfect, is revealed to man. Can scripture be perceived as something spiritual? Or do you say that it can only be that which is physical? If you think that scripture is only that which is physical, then how or what do you perceive "the Word of God" as being? Something only breathed or "spoken"? Either way, our perception of it traverses our minds in physical terms, as that is the only language that our minds recognize. Somewhere, or somehow, there's a jump or transition point between the two. And just because you or I (or anyone else) might not see or understand how that happens or is possible, doesn't mean (much less prove) that it's not possible. Personally, I chose to believe that it is possible. And if it's possible to happen once, then it's possible to happen as often as God determines necessary. However, whether or not what He once determined to reveal to man was preserved perfectly is another matter altogether... and I do not believe that it was preserved perfectly. Pretty good... ? Sure. Maybe even, very good. But not, "perfectly." Nevertheless, when or where possible (i.e., more sensible), I prefer to see it (that is, what we do have or know of it - "it" being "the word of God") as a language that is painting the picture of a much greater "spiritual reality" that is, in any other way, invisible and unknown (and, for whatever it's worth, is that reality that actually does exist totally outside of the cave of man's senses, to which he is inextricably bound.) Does that mark me as a fundamentalist? In the eyes of some, perhaps. But I doubt that much of what I believe conforms much to that mold.

Seems you've conveniently blended "this generation" of Matthew 23 and 24 to make it seem like they are one and the same generation. However, they aren't.

I'd hoped my post wouldn't be that hard to understand, but evidently it was. It's the "fundamentalist approach" that so many (here, and elsewhere) view with blatant disdain. Furthermore, it is scripture and not "the Bible" per se that I associated with inerrancy. (I could elaborate, but it would detract from all else that was said.) I never thought (said, or otherwise implied) that you don't. You seem to be inserting yourself into what I said about how "fundamentalism" can be (or likely is) viewed by others. Matter of fact, some of what I said (of how fundamentalism might be thought of), appears to align quite well with your view of it. And if you read "the problem, as I see it" part of my previous post, perhaps it didn't make any sense to you, so it went clean clear through.

I wonder at times just what is actually meant or intended with this "fundamentalist approach," or why so many find it so reproachable. Surely the mere acceptance of the inerrancy and divine authority of scripture does not, in and of itself, merit such blatant disdain. And if that doesn't make one a fundamentalist, then neither should a confidence in one's own theological positions. However, perhaps the phrase embodies some kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others. Or maybe it simply denotes some brand of "Christian" ideology incapable of acknowledging any sort of incompleteness or inconsistency in their own beliefs, or of tolerating it in anyone else. In any event, the phrase itself carries with it such contempt, it's difficult to imagine anyone purposefully desiring to be the target of such opprobrium. Yet, by its simple and perhaps most basic definition - an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs - I find myself aligned with it. (Albeit, my "irreducible beliefs" are probably far fewer than what you might think.) The problem, as I see it, is not in a disagreement that vpw's interpretation might (or often) eclipse some other way to understand the text. Rather, it is in the possibility that the "some other way" to understand it might also be thought of and deemed as a "fundamentalist approach" which, at times, can differ radically from his (so-called) "fundamentalist approach. Consequently, the damage that results is not only an eclipsing of what might be found apart fundamentalism, but of what might be unknown and undiscovered within it. By this same line of reasoning, I suspect that far too many that were formerly associated with the way have turned aside from much of the truth contained in the Pauline epistles. It probably should also be said here that vpw may have been (and in certain respects, surely was) much more of a legalist than some (or many) of you know or ever thought possible...

Given that's where I thought you were coming from, it's somewhat surprising it didn't ring-a ling a bell or two for you. (Hey... I tried.) If and when you decide to actually read (and honestly think about) exactly what I said, maybe you'll "get it."

Well, for whatever it's worth, it seems that one of the difficulties encountered on these message boards is anticipating (or in some other way, knowing) how some else reading it is going to (or NOT going to) perceive what you meant when you said it. And surely at times, the lack of response simply indicates they just didn't "get it" (or hear it)... possibly because of when or how it was said. So... is there some other way to say (more or less) the same thing? Of course, no guarantee it will do any better or have any different result. However, it has been my experience that anyone (even with limited communication skills) who genuinely understands what they are talking about, can usually find one or two other ways to present their thoughts. (And a highly skilled teacher, some number more than that.) Furthermore, does anyone deny that the proven value of repetition when it comes to our being able to remember what it is that somebody else thinks?

Apparently you're so convinced that you're right, you don't want to see or hear anything else. _______________________________________________________________________ TLC: There is a black crow. Why is that bird always black? Taxidev: You're supposing all birds are black. I disagree. TLC: I restricted that color to one specific bird. You redirected the question with a supposition and are disagreeing with your own supposition. (The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one bird in particular, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else. ) Taxidev: I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that? TLC: [Quotes Taxidev: supposing all birds are black.] Taxidev: That supposition was yours, not mine. TLC: No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that. Taxidev: [Qoutes TLC: Why is that bird always black?]] Yes, this is your own supposition. Not mine. Taxidev: Seriously? You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect? Wow.

No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that (and have in a previous post specifically said that I've never said or thought that.) However, I can see this discussion is repeatedly going nowhere, so I'm done with it.

Perhaps a few things written in the first chapter of Philippians should be remembered here: [15] Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:[16] The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:[17] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.[18] What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Why do you believe that he was raised from the dead when it contradicts everything else that is known and experienced in the world around us? Do you know, or is this not anything that you have ever asked yourself?

If that describes the closing of the American Mind, then I suspect that the instantaneous presence of too many alternative thoughts (i.e., our anytime, instant connection to answers on the Internet) might describe the death of God in the American Mind. Death, in the sense that no one allows God to speak to them in any way other than "through the Net."

I didn't say that, and may not believe that... but maybe I should. (Because I'm not convinced it comes so "naturally" to people nowadays, especially with the advent of the internet and cellphones that so many run to anytime they need to "think" about something...)