I thought I had already detailed out what I thought is his essential nature - - which is both human and divine – as referenced in my previous post; I never suggested anything about a change in how he is perceived…
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.
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.
I am puzzled why you would say “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?” as if all the statements and events of scripture that I chose to refer to in previous posts were of no substance...It almost makes me think you have not really read my posts - but you just blew through them in haste ....in case you have not noticed I've addressed those points several times over in my previous posts...I'm tempted to think you’re just looking for an argument…but maybe that’s just me and my insecurities…if so, excuse please…
You ask a number of interesting questions – which is something I always like about your posts – but I think as theologically and philosophically challenging as they might be, I’d rather stay on our current topic and challenge your fantastic phrase “ 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.” When I said “fantastic” I meant that literally – your statement hits me as some imaginative-conspiracy-theory-remotest-thing-from-reality-appeal-to-ridicule fallacy…but I could be wrong…so…
…just for grins – here is a definition of essential which implies belonging to the very nature of a thing and therefore being incapable of removal without destroying the thing itself or its character…
my suggestion - if you really want to try a different approach – then how about discuss the passages I have already referenced in previous posts that show his divinity AND humanity and maybe you can explain what can be removed without altering who he is.
Feel free to include but you’re certainly not limited to (or imagined as if) pre or post resurrection, pre-existence, and finally – or has, have or had the finalist of the finale of the mother of all finales...post-millennial …I look forward to your different approach.
I have studied this before and wanted to share my findings
If one considers these verses:
1 Cor 15:50 ~
"...that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
Luke 24:39 ~
After he was raised from the dead, Jesus Christ appeared out of thin air to the apostles and told them that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone like he has (in other words, he was telling them that he is not a spirit, that he has a body with flesh and bone (but notice he did not mention blood)
1 Corinthians 15:44 ~
"...there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body..."
I believe it is most likely that Jesus Christ's resurrected body is a spiritual body like the one mentioned in 1 Cor 15:44
And that instead of blood running inside his glorified body (since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God - 1 Cor 15:50)
This would fit with the glorified body of "Philippians 3:21 ~ "who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body"
He most likely has spirit instead of blood running inside his glorified body, which would follow with the glorified body
Blood is life (for the life of the flesh is in the blood - Lev 17:11) [in the natural body]
Spirit is life (John 6:63 ~ It is the spirit that quickeneth > "gives life") [in the spiritual body would make sense]
Of all the verses containing the word "blood" in the New Testament, only one seems to refer to actual physical blood in heaven, but it is not inside a body:
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God" ~ Revelation 19:13
I am puzzled why you would say “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?”
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.)
maybe you can explain what can be removed without altering who he is
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.
Luke 24:39 ~ Jesus clearly states that he is not a spirit:
"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."
1 Corinthians 15:44-45 ~
"There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." ( < spirit here cannot mean that the last Adam - Jesus Christ - was made a spirit, because he already clarified that he is not a spirit in Luke 24:39).
In the context, 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 ~
There is a natural body - is related to - the first man Adam was made a living soul ( < the soul is inside the natural body )
There is a spiritual body - is related to - the last Adam was made a quickening spirit ( < referring to the spirit inside the spiritual body )
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.)
Perhaps you should have read the rest of my post and you might have understood why I was puzzled by your repetitive questions. I addressed your points several times over and you come back, say you’re varying your approach – and then ask the same thing a little differently. Hell yeah that’s puzzling – I’m wondering am I speaking another language or do you even read my stupid posts. So please don’t insult my intelligence by making it sound like I’m the one causing the confusion…I really don’t appreciate that underhandedness …like this one “proclivity towards going backwards which you've done twice in a row now”…fine - if you want to play that game I’ll just keep calling you out on it every time!
I’m certainly not sensitive to or offended by anything you’ve said…I was merely challenging your logical fallacies – like when you said “this commentary as being heavily tainted with (or by) Trinitarian dogma” or “escape from this unchanging, dualistic, "essential nature" train of thinking that the religious intelligentsia has long promoted” …you throw those statements into the discussion like they are an accepted fact or common knowledge when in truth you have no grounds for their validity – it hits me as a feeble and deceptive way to refute someone’s argument.
You said: “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.)”
Yeah right…take off the kid gloves! If you’re gonna debate the valid points that I brought up then take a serious crack at it and don’t pussyfoot around with groundless challenges about my references.
I’m not in the habit of defending what’s said in commentaries or what “distant bible scholars have written” – on the contrary I draw from any valid and relevant source that will back up what I say…so if you really want to “key in on what I think” then please afford me the simple courtesy of recognizing my statements…thesis…or whatever it is you think of my post – as a premise of mine and any scripture, commentary, or other reference I cite as merely a means to maintain or prove that…do you get that? there is a difference...I'm not trying to prove my sources are right...I'm using those sources to try and prove that I'm right!
I'm no snowflake...perhaps just an incredible flake.
thank you for your time and concern in this matter and have a nice day.
Luke 24:39 ~ Jesus clearly states that he is not a spirit:
"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."
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?
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?
I was going to joke about "do you believe God has a right hand"?
But then you mention a group of people who can only believe what their five senses tell them. I'm sure it's been gone over there are more than five senses.
But are senses the only source of belief? (sounds a lot like not going beyond what we are taught) We know things from birth. That's knowledge the senses didn't bring in.
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)
The context of Luke 24 is that at least 11 of the only 13 people that Jesus talked to in that chapter were apostles, all of whom had the holy spirit and had already believed beyond what they could know by their five senses, as they did miracles and such
11 hours ago, TLC said:
Do you suppose it to now be flesh and bones seated at the right hand of God?
I don't suppose it, Jesus Christ himself said it in Luke 24:39 (after he was raised from the dead) that his body had flesh and bone, there is no scripture saying that his body was changed again after his ressurrection and before he was taken up into heaven
The most scripturally-based conclusion is that his body is flesh and bone (with the spirit inside) since he sat down the right hand of God about 2,000 years ago - Hebrews 10:12 - "...sat down on the right hand of God..."
Which is like a stake through the heart of the Trinity because Jesus Christ explaining in Luke 24:39 that his resurrected body is flesh and bone, and that he is not a spirit, and then Jesus Christ saying in John 4:24 that God is a spirit, and Jesus Christ being on earth while God is in heaven taking Jesus up into heaven (two different beings in two different places), and then Jesus Christ sitting down on the right hand of God (not becoming God when he got to heaven) pretty much proves that the idea of the Trinity, that was invented out of thin air by the Catholic church in 325 A.D. [historical fact], is not scriptural since about 2,000 years ago.
Not even the great Perry Mason could crack this "open (the scriptures) and shut case".
"all of whom had the holy spirit and had already believed beyond what they could know by their five senses"
4 hours ago, TLC said:
not at that point in time.
Wanna bet?
Even before that point in time:
Luke 9:1,2,6
"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick."
"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where."
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.
So to address a more general phrase of that question "was blood necessary" ? At all? yes the shedding of blood of the lamb was necessary for the atonement of sin from the OT law. Was that OT law from "God-breathed" or "man's idea"? Well I can record 10 commandments directly God breathed, upon tablets. Outside of that, you have another element. The human brain. But either way, scripture had to be fulfilled.
The way I look at the human brain kind of involves an electrical circuit. If you picture God's pure idea and intent traveling around a copper wire circuit like electricity it has no resistance. However, in an electrical circuit, to accomplish anything you can't just have pure copper wire (as nowadays that would be stolen and sold), but you need other elements like resistors and capacitors. These components allow for the doing of work across a load and the storing of current. In a way, the human brain is like a combination of resistors and capacitors. God's pure idea travels around on a current, then encounters a person. i.e. resistor and part capacitor with a short term memory storage. When you get to the page of a written scripture or the carrying out of the pure idea there is a filtering down happening to accomplish work.
The next concept getting into involves I think one of your ideas you've been trying to express across this thread amidst communication. This is the idea of timing. Before the resurrection? After the resurrection? Now? When I first started thinking about it I wondered to myself, "now what difference in the world would that make?" Then i started reading and thinking about the Christology discussion.
If people are still really approaching this from a fundamentalist viewpoint, with the underlying assumption that there can't be a single word out of place in scripture or God will be illogical and fall apart (that's a lot of assumption but another topic), then what makes sense is to approach this from a Jesus literally transfigured once or a number of times first from God then to a human named Jesus and then back to God (or god-like son or something) when he resurrected. Is this the line of logic you were pursuing? Care to develop it further?
If aspects of the trinity are shown to occur across time and peoples and religions I'm not sure how one can conclude it to be false.
The Way focuses in and hyper emphasizes The Father aspect. Which has its role and benefits, such as order and protection, but taken to an extreme represents tyrannical nature.
Are you trying to tell me the Way has daddy issues?
I thought I had already detailed out what I thought is his essential nature - - which is both human and divine – as referenced in my previous post; I never suggested anything about a change in how he is perceived…I think that would be more along the lines of a “perception is reality” tangent - meaning that the way a person sees Jesus Christ... the world...whatever is their “truth”, regardless of whether or not their conclusions are factually accurate or not.
Rather I was drawing upon what the scriptures said about his dual nature…both human and divine as shown in the passages I referred to before...so let's look at them again - - and then I want to ask a couple of questions:
14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father…John 1:14 NET
6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature… Philippians 2: 6, 7 NET
“The Word became flesh” – is that speaking of something that is real or merely as something to perceive or imagine? “He existed in the form of God…and sharing in human nature” – again is this speaking of a being with an actual “dual” existence or is this about a mental construct?
I don’t think it takes any Trinitarian-dogma- tainted logic to see that these passages are speaking of a being who’s basic or inherent qualities are both human and divine. It says he existed in the form of God and shared in human nature - what's so difficult about that concept other than it doesn't agree with TWI's teaching that Jesus Christ is not God?
Going from a gruesome battered corpse to a resurrected immortal body is a stunning change indeed – and yet his essential nature was not changed – for we read of one of his resurrected appearances in Luke
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”…Luke 24:36 – 39 NASB
Jesus Christ – in his new resurrected body said “it is I myself”. This seems to be a fairly clear and concise statement made by Jesus that he was still essentially the same person he was before he was crucified and buried…I remember a comedian saying he had the very ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree…of course over time due to age, rust, and rot he had to replace the ax head and wooden handle – but it still occupied the same space as George’s original ax …what I’m saying is that it wasn’t like that after the resurrection of Jesus Christ…he said “it is I myself”. I believe he still had a dual nature – and his body was still recognizable as a human – for he said he had flesh and bones…but I imagine this was a new and improved body…reconstituted at the subatomic level? I don’t know…just speculation…don’t know exactly how all this was accomplished.
Interesting stuff. The Thomas accounts with the resurrected Christ where I was just starting kind of offer up some interesting angles. "Doubting Thomas" - John 20:24-31
I mean Thomas vocal expression of what it would take for him to believe. Christ appearing. Simple instructions. Put your finger here (where the nail marks from the crucifixion were). See my hands. Reach out touch my side (where the spear pierced during the crucifixion). Stop doubting and believe.
What exactly is going on here? The deeper I get into the minutae the more questions I feel come up.
The context of Luke 24 is that at least 11 of the only 13 people that Jesus talked to in that chapter were apostles, all of whom had the holy spirit and had already believed beyond what they could know by their five senses, as they did miracles and such
I don't suppose it, Jesus Christ himself said it in Luke 24:39 (after he was raised from the dead) that his body had flesh and bone, there is no scripture saying that his body was changed again after his ressurrection and before he was taken up into heaven
The most scripturally-based conclusion is that his body is flesh and bone (with the spirit inside) since he sat down the right hand of God about 2,000 years ago - Hebrews 10:12 - "...sat down on the right hand of God..."
Which is like a stake through the heart of the Trinity because Jesus Christ explaining in Luke 24:39 that his resurrected body is flesh and bone, and that he is not a spirit, and then Jesus Christ saying in John 4:24 that God is a spirit, and Jesus Christ being on earth while God is in heaven taking Jesus up into heaven (two different beings in two different places), and then Jesus Christ sitting down on the right hand of God (not becoming God when he got to heaven) pretty much proves that the idea of the Trinity, that was invented out of thin air by the Catholic church in 325 A.D. [historical fact], is not scriptural since about 2,000 years ago.
Not even the great Perry Mason could crack this "open (the scriptures) and shut case".
Does Jesus still have scars in his new body? The nail mark thing going on in the hands and feet? Or were they able to get that healed up? Wouldn't that present a problem during a normal handshake? Hey sorry that feels weird, but you know, I'm Jesus.
Actually, I have heard teachings addressing that saying he had a resurrected body like Christians are supposed to get at his return, then during the ascension he changed into spirit.
Now I do like Perry Mason, and I do like Buffy the Vampire Slayer also, but is the Trinity a vampire where we need lots of garlic and wooden stakes? Or is it just a one word representation of some monks handling of Christology that the Pope ratified in 325 and became part of mysterious chants, creeds, and a mystery religion concept that is left over from history and most of Christianity glosses over?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
41
26
22
19
Popular Days
Mar 8
23
Jul 8
21
Mar 10
17
Jul 20
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Bolshevik 41 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 22 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 8 2018
23 posts
Jul 8 2017
21 posts
Mar 10 2018
17 posts
Jul 20 2017
17 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
What experience with churches today exactly do you have? Aren't you one of the ones that isolated and studied PFAL collaterals for a decade plus not attending churches? In my experience the trin
Raf
Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both befo
Bolshevik
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists. Do the various views of trinity/
TLC
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
.
Edited by TLCdouble post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I am puzzled why you would say “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?” as if all the statements and events of scripture that I chose to refer to in previous posts were of no substance...It almost makes me think you have not really read my posts - but you just blew through them in haste ....in case you have not noticed I've addressed those points several times over in my previous posts...I'm tempted to think you’re just looking for an argument…but maybe that’s just me and my insecurities…if so, excuse please…
You ask a number of interesting questions – which is something I always like about your posts – but I think as theologically and philosophically challenging as they might be, I’d rather stay on our current topic and challenge your fantastic phrase “ 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.” When I said “fantastic” I meant that literally – your statement hits me as some imaginative-conspiracy-theory-remotest-thing-from-reality-appeal-to-ridicule fallacy…but I could be wrong…so…
…just for grins
– here is a definition of essential which implies belonging to the very nature of a thing and therefore being incapable of removal without destroying the thing itself or its character…
my suggestion - if you really want to try a different approach – then how about discuss the passages I have already referenced in previous posts that show his divinity AND humanity and maybe you can explain what can be removed without altering who he is.
Feel free to include but you’re certainly not limited to (or imagined as if) pre or post resurrection, pre-existence, and finally – or has, have or had the finalist of the finale of the mother of all finales...post-millennial
…I look forward to your different approach.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
I have studied this before and wanted to share my findings
If one considers these verses:
1 Cor 15:50 ~
"...that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
Luke 24:39 ~
After he was raised from the dead, Jesus Christ appeared out of thin air to the apostles and told them that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone like he has (in other words, he was telling them that he is not a spirit, that he has a body with flesh and bone (but notice he did not mention blood)
1 Corinthians 15:44 ~
"...there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body..."
I believe it is most likely that Jesus Christ's resurrected body is a spiritual body like the one mentioned in 1 Cor 15:44
And that instead of blood running inside his glorified body (since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God - 1 Cor 15:50)
This would fit with the glorified body of "Philippians 3:21 ~ "who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body"
He most likely has spirit instead of blood running inside his glorified body, which would follow with the glorified body
Blood is life (for the life of the flesh is in the blood - Lev 17:11) [in the natural body]
Spirit is life (John 6:63 ~ It is the spirit that quickeneth > "gives life") [in the spiritual body would make sense]
Of all the verses containing the word "blood" in the New Testament, only one seems to refer to actual physical blood in heaven, but it is not inside a body:
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God" ~ Revelation 19:13
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Has spirit... or is spirit? 1Cor.15:45.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Has spirit
Luke 24:39 ~ Jesus clearly states that he is not a spirit:
"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."
1 Corinthians 15:44-45 ~
"There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." ( < spirit here cannot mean that the last Adam - Jesus Christ - was made a spirit, because he already clarified that he is not a spirit in Luke 24:39).
In the context, 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 ~
There is a natural body - is related to - the first man Adam was made a living soul ( < the soul is inside the natural body )
There is a spiritual body - is related to - the last Adam was made a quickening spirit ( < referring to the spirit inside the spiritual body )
In Luke 24:39, Jesus says:
A spirit doesn't have flesh and bones
but he doesn't say:
Flesh and bones can't have a spirit
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Perhaps you should have read the rest of my post and you might have understood why I was puzzled by your repetitive questions. I addressed your points several times over and you come back, say you’re varying your approach – and then ask the same thing a little differently. Hell yeah that’s puzzling – I’m wondering am I speaking another language or do you even read my stupid posts. So please don’t insult my intelligence by making it sound like I’m the one causing the confusion…I really don’t appreciate that underhandedness …like this one “proclivity towards going backwards which you've done twice in a row now”…fine - if you want to play that game I’ll just keep calling you out on it every time!
I’m certainly not sensitive to or offended by anything you’ve said…I was merely challenging your logical fallacies – like when you said “this commentary as being heavily tainted with (or by) Trinitarian dogma” or “escape from this unchanging, dualistic, "essential nature" train of thinking that the religious intelligentsia has long promoted” …you throw those statements into the discussion like they are an accepted fact or common knowledge when in truth you have no grounds for their validity – it hits me as a feeble and deceptive way to refute someone’s argument.
You said: “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.)”
Yeah right…take off the kid gloves! If you’re gonna debate the valid points that I brought up then take a serious crack at it and don’t pussyfoot around with groundless challenges about my references.
I’m not in the habit of defending what’s said in commentaries or what “distant bible scholars have written” – on the contrary I draw from any valid and relevant source that will back up what I say…so if you really want to “key in on what I think” then please afford me the simple courtesy of recognizing my statements…thesis…or whatever it is you think of my post – as a premise of mine and any scripture, commentary, or other reference I cite as merely a means to maintain or prove that…do you get that? there is a difference...I'm not trying to prove my sources are right...I'm using those sources to try and prove that I'm right!
I'm no snowflake...perhaps just an incredible flake.
thank you for your time and concern in this matter and have a nice day.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Never my intention, nor will I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was going to joke about "do you believe God has a right hand"?
But then you mention a group of people who can only believe what their five senses tell them. I'm sure it's been gone over there are more than five senses.
But are senses the only source of belief? (sounds a lot like not going beyond what we are taught) We know things from birth. That's knowledge the senses didn't bring in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
The context of Luke 24 is that at least 11 of the only 13 people that Jesus talked to in that chapter were apostles, all of whom had the holy spirit and had already believed beyond what they could know by their five senses, as they did miracles and such
I don't suppose it, Jesus Christ himself said it in Luke 24:39 (after he was raised from the dead) that his body had flesh and bone, there is no scripture saying that his body was changed again after his ressurrection and before he was taken up into heaven
The most scripturally-based conclusion is that his body is flesh and bone (with the spirit inside) since he sat down the right hand of God about 2,000 years ago - Hebrews 10:12 - "...sat down on the right hand of God..."
Which is like a stake through the heart of the Trinity because Jesus Christ explaining in Luke 24:39 that his resurrected body is flesh and bone, and that he is not a spirit, and then Jesus Christ saying in John 4:24 that God is a spirit, and Jesus Christ being on earth while God is in heaven taking Jesus up into heaven (two different beings in two different places), and then Jesus Christ sitting down on the right hand of God (not becoming God when he got to heaven) pretty much proves that the idea of the Trinity, that was invented out of thin air by the Catholic church in 325 A.D. [historical fact], is not scriptural since about 2,000 years ago.
Not even the great Perry Mason could crack this "open (the scriptures) and shut case".
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
okay, then how about physical senses (i.e., received into the brain via physical sensory perceptors.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
from time of conception? yes. (until information via spirit is introduced)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
not at that point in time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I just googled "are there more than five senses"
Off topic. Sorry.
Edited by BolshevikOff spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I think that when even the demons address Jesus as 'the Son of God' they ought to know huh ?? Matthew 8:29
Edited by AllanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
GoldStar said:
"all of whom had the holy spirit and had already believed beyond what they could know by their five senses"
Wanna bet?
Even before that point in time:
Luke 9:1,2,6
"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick."
"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where."
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So to address a more general phrase of that question "was blood necessary" ? At all? yes the shedding of blood of the lamb was necessary for the atonement of sin from the OT law. Was that OT law from "God-breathed" or "man's idea"? Well I can record 10 commandments directly God breathed, upon tablets. Outside of that, you have another element. The human brain. But either way, scripture had to be fulfilled.
The way I look at the human brain kind of involves an electrical circuit. If you picture God's pure idea and intent traveling around a copper wire circuit like electricity it has no resistance. However, in an electrical circuit, to accomplish anything you can't just have pure copper wire (as nowadays that would be stolen and sold), but you need other elements like resistors and capacitors. These components allow for the doing of work across a load and the storing of current. In a way, the human brain is like a combination of resistors and capacitors. God's pure idea travels around on a current, then encounters a person. i.e. resistor and part capacitor with a short term memory storage. When you get to the page of a written scripture or the carrying out of the pure idea there is a filtering down happening to accomplish work.
The next concept getting into involves I think one of your ideas you've been trying to express across this thread amidst communication. This is the idea of timing. Before the resurrection? After the resurrection? Now? When I first started thinking about it I wondered to myself, "now what difference in the world would that make?" Then i started reading and thinking about the Christology discussion.
If people are still really approaching this from a fundamentalist viewpoint, with the underlying assumption that there can't be a single word out of place in scripture or God will be illogical and fall apart (that's a lot of assumption but another topic), then what makes sense is to approach this from a Jesus literally transfigured once or a number of times first from God then to a human named Jesus and then back to God (or god-like son or something) when he resurrected. Is this the line of logic you were pursuing? Care to develop it further?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Are you trying to tell me the Way has daddy issues?
LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Interesting stuff. The Thomas accounts with the resurrected Christ where I was just starting kind of offer up some interesting angles. "Doubting Thomas" - John 20:24-31
I mean Thomas vocal expression of what it would take for him to believe. Christ appearing. Simple instructions. Put your finger here (where the nail marks from the crucifixion were). See my hands. Reach out touch my side (where the spear pierced during the crucifixion). Stop doubting and believe.
What exactly is going on here? The deeper I get into the minutae the more questions I feel come up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Does Jesus still have scars in his new body? The nail mark thing going on in the hands and feet? Or were they able to get that healed up? Wouldn't that present a problem during a normal handshake? Hey sorry that feels weird, but you know, I'm Jesus.
Actually, I have heard teachings addressing that saying he had a resurrected body like Christians are supposed to get at his return, then during the ascension he changed into spirit.
Now I do like Perry Mason, and I do like Buffy the Vampire Slayer also, but is the Trinity a vampire where we need lots of garlic and wooden stakes? Or is it just a one word representation of some monks handling of Christology that the Pope ratified in 325 and became part of mysterious chants, creeds, and a mystery religion concept that is left over from history and most of Christianity glosses over?
Counselor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.