TLC

Of course, as per Heb.9:22. But the context of my question was after it was shed, and there being any further need of it (in the resurrection.) Okay, that makes sense enough to me. But not that. It's too hard for me get a clear enough picture of what you intend or mean to include (or not include) with that word "transfigured," especially given you think it can or might happen more than once. I see the resurrection as... well, perhaps for lack of any better description... a new concept. A "One-of-a-kind," first ever... birth. In that very day, the coming forth of the new and "only begotten Son of God" (see Acts13:33.) The last Adam has passed; the "second man" arrived. Nothing before or since is comparable to it.

Four fingers of that point back at yourself. This "which Christ" line has been tossed around over the years (usually by staunch Trinitarians) so haphazardly and ... so outright maliciously at times, that it's truly disgusting. Which other was it that laid his life down on a cross at Calgary, that God subsequently raised from the dead and called his "only begotten Son"? None, I tell you. Absolutely none. Make no mistake about it.

not at that point in time.

from time of conception? yes. (until information via spirit is introduced)

okay, then how about physical senses (i.e., received into the brain via physical sensory perceptors.)

Never my intention, nor will I.

What is the context of Luke 24? (Spoken to Israelites, that could never bring themselves to believe anything beyond what could be known by their five senses.) Do you suppose it to now be flesh and bones seated at the right hand of God? And how might you propose that we can be (much less, are) the body of Christ?

Has spirit... or is spirit? 1Cor.15:45.

Yeah... as if any of us know much of anything about what his (or any other) "spiritual body" is and/or isn't. Are we part of that spiritual body? Or not?

You completely and totally sidestepped and missed the question of whether blood was essential to the resurrected Christ. Evidently you're only interested in discussing (or debating) the passages you've already referenced in previous posts that show his divinity and humanity. No thanks.

Given your probable age, I take it you aren't a snowflake. So this stopped me in my tracks and I haven't read the rest of your post. Frankly, it puzzles me somewhat why you're apparently puzzled by what I wrote. But, rather than not give you the benefit of doubt (which I hope doesn't prove to be a mistake), I'll give you as straight up and as honest an answer as possible. For starters, perhaps it would help to think of some of my methods of communication as coming from a rather odd combination of (in no particular order) layman, gardener, salesman, and Socratic. Obviously, that doesn't categorize well, and I've come to recognize my "different way of thinking" for what it really is (more than anything else), a handicap. In other words, what I write don't always communicate or come across as plainly or as clearly as it should (or that I think it does.) Now, with that in mind... My intent (from the get go, 2 posts ago in this thread) was to see if any discussion would open up on an issue that (I think) is rarely (if ever) brought up. Knowing how sensitive some (in general, not you in particular) are, I deliberately chose to aim my words toward what was written in a Bible Commentary, hoping to use it as a springboard, rather than risk offending anybody in the process. So much for idea. Nor does it now appear that I've faired much better in my second attempt. Incorporated into the thinking of a (reasonably good) salesman is the ability to anticipate where an objection to the sale can or might arise. If it does present itself, do you suppose that it's easier to address it before asking for the sale, or after? Maybe you aren't into understanding sales processes or motivational techniques (though you were certainly exposed to enough of them in TWI, especially if you were WC), but the long and short of is this is: I was merely trying to minimize discussions defending what commentators or distant bible scholars have written, and key in on what you think... going forward. And not (as so many here have a proclivity towards) going backwards (which you've done twice in a row now.)

Did he preach and elevate himself (or live lavishly)? Did he preach Christ crucified, and risen from the dead? Were doors opened unto him? What then? Well, to continue on (in the words of Paul)... notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

.

okay, allow me to try a different approach. first, kindly consider it directed towards and concerning (as it was before) the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary ...and not towards you or something that you necessarily thought or authored. second, rather than merely play back what somebody else might think or says is the "essential nature," how about pondering the extent of what might or did change at or with his resurrection? And finally, might or did anything that was (or could be deemed) originally essential to his nature, or integrated with the "essential nature" of his life prior to his death on the cross, end up missing, unnecessary and/or irrelevant to what is essential after his resurrection? Was blood necessary after resurrection? If so, where do you find or see it mentioned that it was? But if not... is the life of the risen Christ the same life, or the same "essence" that was in the blood? If one believes that Christ existed before his birth in Bethlehem, undoubtedly the answer is - yes, of course it's the same (why wouldn't it be?) But is that the only answer? The only possibility? Yet, if one can't (or doesn't) escape from this unchanging, dualistic, "essential nature" train of thinking that the religious intelligentsia has long promoted, perhaps there is no other answer necessary, nor possible. Oh, make no mistake about it, I do see the dualistic nature of Jesus Christ... the one before resurrection, and the one after.

Although that may be true, the particular manner in which it is written strikes me as some clever effort to steer the reader's thinking into believing that there was no change whatsoever (and never has been) in the "essential nature" of one in particular, namely Jesus Christ. Which, to return to what I posted previously, very blatantly relegates whatever change(s) occurred at his resurrection to nothing more than how he is perceived, rather than reveal the stunning change in his "essential nature." In other words, I see this commentary as being heavily tainted with (or by) Trinitarian dogma. Now... do you want (or care) to flesh out just exactly what you think this "essential nature" really means or refers to?

There's plenty of "apparent contradictions" because so few clearly see or take into consideration the change that occurred at his resurrection. Miss or screw that one up, and you're left with contradictions a plenty.

Well, perhaps this won't mean much to some of you... but the combination of how our senses (conditioned from birth) mind works and the way scripture might be intentional written (at times or in certain places) makes is far too easy to miss or overlook... let's just say... "enough" of the truth, that there's undoubtedly a much larger "gray area" here than some might like or care for. For instance... this whole issue of something being "literal" or not. If I write, "there's a fork in the road..." what do I mean, exactly? What literal fork in the road might you think of or imagine? A metal utensil of some sort... or the juncture of one road becoming two? Which of these do you say is more "literal," and why? What do you depend on to make that determination? So... when it comes around to discussing/communicating spiritual realities, what definitions or "realities" are used to make the assessment whether something is figurative or literal? The commonly accepted practice seems to be to simply call something "figurative" whenever and where ever a perceived literal meaning doesn't make sense or fit with previously constructed (or accepted) theology, with insufficient thought ever more honestly given to what reality it might rather appropriately refer to "literally." And, if anyone thinks that there's nothing spiritual that can be spoken of or referred to in a "literal" sense... perhaps that's merely evidence of the carnal (sense knowledge) mind's failure to see and think in terms of deeper, otherwise invisible, perspectives on life. Think the only 'literal' tree that grows or exists in this world is one that is constructed of cellulose? Then you are in no better shape than one wired to think the only "literal" fork in the road is a metal utensil. And that's just the physical side of this, with no thought or consideration being given to what it can or might refer to spiritually.

not funny, actually (because it's all too close to the truth)... but dang... it did make me laugh. (ego's lined up at the trough, waiting for more slop to come spilling out...) you get a GoldStar for painting a picture with words!

Regardless of how it's taught, I reckon there's enough of an actual effect in believing, that it's rather easy to miss (or mistake) the real reason(s) for change. (And that statement be applied to far more than I care to get into...)

hmmm... not that I'm terribly interested or intrigued in this, or that I think it's an invalid dichotomy... but, perhaps there's a third perspective (presuming it can be called that) if considered from the future looking backwards. Because if it's thought that there is a (future) possibility that no devil will exist (or, exists no longer)... then so might it be possible to consider what an existence now could be regardless of whether the Devil does or doesn't exist. In other words, perhaps the devil gets far, far more thought and/or attention then warranted or needed to live in peace and prosperity in the arms of God.

Don't know you, Mike, or when or how you were involved in TWI... but evidently (and very plainly) you didn't sit much at the feet of vpw (literally, as well as figuratively) and listen (and actually hear, or understand) much of what he said. I'd have asked that as a question... but, think you've already shown (at least some, if not most of) us the answer. As prideful, egotistical, or narcissistic (take your pick) vpw might have been, I don't believe that he ever saw or thought of himself being capable of writing on par with scripture... else he never would have allowed (or requested) anyone to touch or edit what he wrote. Obviously you never heard or paid attention to him talking about how the writers of scripture did or surely DIDN'T write them...

Perhaps if you weren't as focused on yourself as you evidently are, you might not have so easily missed or overlooked the meat (and heart) of my post (identifying "a real issue with PFAL.") Furthermore, your rather sarcastic (and plainly evident) insinuation that my thoughts were evil in what I wrote previously is... well, let's just call it "unappreciated."

hmmm.... Frankly, I haven't followed much of this thread, as too much of it seems to ramble off into never, never land. But that paragraph was quite a slap in the face, given how many times "me, my[self], and I" appears in it. Because if and when you actually awaken to it... it seems that was, is, and always will be a real issue with "PFAL." It primarily appeals to, and so generously fertilizes the inherently selfish nature (which we all were born into, thanks to the first man, Adam.) John 10:10 was written to (and for) the nation of Israel. It was not given to (nor written for) Gentiles. Does PFAL contain keys that can help oneself live a more abundant life? Sure, I think so. Does that alone make or mean that it is the best for knowing or learning about God or the Lord Jesus Christ (much less mean that it is, "God breathed")? Why so much concern for and the many thoughts about "me" (i.e., you or me) growing? You don't see or recognize the "growth" of Ephesians 4 being that of Christ?

Well, I'm inclined to think most (if not all) complications are probably nothing more than that. In other words, if our attention and focus is genuinely on or for the things of God (which axiomatically excludes selfishness), then how much energy and effort do you suppose would go into wondering or determining whether or not thoughts in our mind are really thoughts from, of, or as the Lord himself? In fact, would it be a strange or surprising thing to you if I said that I (now) primarily think that God probably does His greatest and best work in Christians that probably don't give much actual time or thought to whether (or how) God works within them? But, maybe this just doesn't make as sense to you, or certain others here.

Why complicate it beyond when his (Christ's) thoughts become our thoughts?