OldSkool

Mike - I know you have a lot coming at you at the moment - but please try and respond when you get a chance. Thanks.

Yessir! The NT canon didn't come about until around 360 years after Jesus Christ, so that's about the fourth century.

No - that wasn't a gap of nothingness. While the last written Prophet was Malachi there was the book of Maccabees that details what happened in that 400 years span. It was dropped from the Canon that our Bibles are based on and probably never should have been dropped. But either way you can check it out if you haven't read it.

So God who cannot lie, impersonated Jesus Christ in a revelation to Paul?

Coolness. Well heading back to the first century, it's fair to say unless one was very wealthy then their Old Testamen access came from the Synagogues or perhaps even the temple in Jerusalem. So it's probably moot to get into OT in context of the first century. More in a few.

Respectfully, you sure danced expertly around that one. You didn't answer the question. And to be clear, I am not struggling to understand anything except your position. I can clearly read what scripture says and understand it fine. It's when it get's rationalized away that I get curious as to why the rationalazation.

From TWI>?

Wassup!!! That and some real dip$hits messing with a kid over what's on the internet.

Alright - quick question. Are we limiting the thread to NT only? Or do we want to include OT as well? Are we covering books that were left out such as the Apocryphia, book of Jasher, etc? Or sticking to the NT? I find it hard to discuss this topic without getting into the underlying Greek texts as well. Im including a quote from wikipedia (I get that wiki isn't the most reliable source due to the fact that anyone can edit but it serves it's purpose here to define our terms) Or do we just wanna go at it from the things Mike is working on and referenced in the Absent Christ thread? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Why did he wait almost 2000 years? Doesn't sound fair.

Why did the blood change...it was sinless. What scripture reference tells us his blood changed but the rest was flesh and bones. Whatever form Jesus Christ is today is different from what he was before he was resureccted. Im thinking this is more word salad. But....let's play. So....Im going to forego verse quotes but my logic comes straight from scripture. Mankind is corrupted via the sin nature due to Adam's disobediance. Jesus Christ comes but doesnt have a sin nature, skipping the polluted blood part because sin nature appearantly has to do with blood. Don't claim to understand that part - it's just what it is; Jesus blood was sinless. Christ died to redeem mankind, taking our place in judgement and wrath. Jesus is resurected and is ascended to the right hand of God. Scripture notes he still has flesh and bones but scripture also calls him a life quickening SPIRIT. Again, don't claim to know how the watch works but I am looking at the time. Now - Scripture states that those born again shall be changed from our current state of corruption to Christ's state of glorious incorruption as he will never again die and neither shall we. If Christ is still flesh and bones the same as when during his monstry to Israel, then why does scripture plainly state that flesh and blood shall not inhereit the kingdom of God. Don't try and discount what I am saying because you are saying flesh and bones from a reference in the gospels. Flesh representing our current bodies, simply cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So Christ being flesh and bones the way he was when he walked the earth makes no sense and it's scripture that delieneates the difference. So am I to understand that when we are changed to be like Christ on that day that we are going to just change back into what we were? You say I don't have an overall scope of the topic and I disagree. Your logic is circular at best. Jesus has changed from flesh and blood to flesh and bones? Christians will be changed from flesh and blood into what Christ is which is flesh and bones...? Let me put this forth: Whatever the heck God changed Jesus Chrst into at his resurection is beyond what we can comprehend at this time but whatever it is it's not what we are today. We get more than a blood transfusion when we are fully redeemed.

Im curious. If Jesus is hidden away from sight forever more until the return, then how does this make sense? Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said,Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. Looks like an active Lord strengthening his people, talking with Paul and encouraging him in dire circumstances.

I'm definitely down with branching off a thread on Old and New Testament Canon, history of Greek texts...there's basically two main sources where our Greek texts originate - Antioch and Alexandria. The Roman Catholic Church has been heavily involved in suppression efforts, etc I need to quit playing on my phone and work for a while so I'll check in when I'm home. Peace.

No worries. I know I have responded to you in my own condescending tones as well...I apologize for that.

You want me to keep running in circles with you...I handled these verses two pages back.

And I assume because I disagree with you I haven't developed a overall scope of scripture? It's your condescending manner of communicating that's so off putting. You've have straw manned and red herring us to death yet your position does not hold up to scrutiny and you seem to have real trouble staying on point in a discussion. Gotta say that's typical of the way international and I used to be the exact same way. You literally have no actual trust in scripture without wierwille to interpret.

Yeah...given to him by a very non-absent Christ. It was Jesus Christ himself communicating with Paul.

Even wierwille recognized that Christ is changed and sporting a new body. U do understand that basic Christology teaches this truth? That Christ is the first born from the dead raised in glory?

Mike...what ever happened to it says what it means and means what it says?

Mike - I mean no disrespect and what I am about to say is not directed at you personally but your point of view: This is a point of view grounded in ignorance concerning the KJV Bible. It was translated from the Textus Receptus which is comprised of several thousand texts that agree over 95% of the time. Most modern day versions come from Wescott-Hort and they are based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus and they disagree more than 3000 times just between themselves. From: http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/

Thanks for the link. I'll read along!

Same here. I used to rationalize till the cows came home when it came to TWI - especially as I was exposed to the corruption and cover-up. Then I used to tell myself that I would stay way corps until I would be in a position to change TWI. Yah...something comes to mind here....Leopard....change...spots....yeah...not gonna happen. Ive heard so many others rationalize how vics plaigarism was not actually theft. Think my favorite rationalization is that "plaigarism wasnt an issue then because copyright laws didn't matter to people back then." That was a popular point of view from an offshoot ministry I looked at back in 2008 when I first left. It's something about cult life that seems to demolish logic and discourage logical thinking, critical thinking, or honest discourse.

While I believe what is written concerning Christ's current state, form, and functions from scripture --- I make 0 claims that I actually understand any of it beyond the words given in scripture. Im sure there is more to understand from scripture than my little mind has peeked into.

Yep, fair enough.

You got me good too. I laughed so hard on the absent Beetlejuice my sides hurt.