Please don't accuse me of lying. It doesn't help the conversation at all.
So you see what Paul said to King Agrippa in that 3rd Acts passage?
I finally found it with the search engine and "Agrippa."
My apologies, accusing you of lying wasn't my intent at all. Mike - I sometimes wonder if we were demoralized by wierwille's behaviour and from being in a cult that constantly pushed the boundaries. One pretty consistent trait of demoralized people is you can put truth right in front of them and they will choose the reality they live in from being demoralized. I incluse myself at the top of this somewhat off topic speculation.
My apologies, accusing you of lying wasn't my intent at all. Mike - I sometimes wonder if we were demoralized by wierwille's behaviour and from being in a cult that constantly pushed the boundaries. One pretty consistent trait of demoralized people is you can put truth right in front of them and they will choose the reality they live in from being demoralized. I incluse myself at the top of this somewhat off topic speculation.
Well. Mike, Im gonna move over to that Canon thread. We can agree to disagree. Really, theres nothing wrong with that and it's healthy in relationships. I have enjoyed the conversation though!
Well. Mike, Im gonna move over to that Canon thread. We can agree to disagree. Really, theres nothing wrong with that and it's healthy in relationships. I have enjoyed the conversation though!
Thanks much. I enjoyed the gentlemanly way things developed.
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 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.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
*/*/*/*/*
Here we have the flesh and bones, raised from the dead, Jesus.
Notice he didn't say "flesh and blood" because that would not be accurate.
You are right, Oldskool, that his body had changed. It was the blood part that changed, not the flesh and bones. He still wanted food.
Are these verses new to you?
*sigh*
[It's amazing how much can be invented around something really simple that was missed.
Jesus' disciples weren't picked because they were the sharpest crayons in Galilee. At least once (when Jesus walked on water), they saw something they didn't understand, freaked out, and claimed it was some kind of phantasm. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there.
In this account, Jesus showed up again, and again their first response was to freak out. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there. He went out of his way to make it clear he was a real person, physical, solid, and material. (Not some Gnostic, spirit-being "resurrection", a complete, bodily resurrection had been done.) How did he settle the issue? He had them take a blood sample, run it down to the CSI Jerusalem HQ, and when the results came back, then they knew it was him.
Oh, come on! He did the simplest thing! Here, I'm solid! I have flesh! I have bones! I'm a real person! Anyone can go up and tell with a touch whether you have flesh and bones. They can see your teeth, they can feel your skeletal structure- skull, ribs, shoulder blades. (Except for Mark Sanguinetti, whose shoulder-blades were taken by a mad scientist for an experiment.)
So, he showed them he had a human body. He let them physically touch him- I expect a few hugs were given and received, and so on. Jesus asked for food, and ate in front of him. He was solid to the touch. He had an apparent skeletal structure. He ate food. He carried on conversations. Seriously, wouldn't that settle any question of if he was real? Isn't that the most anyone would expect? He didn't mention his blood because it was completely irrelevant. If they were still not sure if it was Real Physical Jesus there, would they have been any MORE sure if Jesus grabbed a steak-knife, cut himself, and let them see the dripping blood? What would be the point of even bringing up his blood at the moment? I mean, he looked like a normal person. If he'd looked really pale, they might have suspected he was missing his blood or something, but he looked normal, and a normal person has blood circulating and giving their skin color.
As for "his body hadn't changed", ridiculous! He was able to pass physically from place to place without passing through all the places in-between. That's obviously a physical ability, and one that he didn't have before and we don't have right now. (I'd sure love to have that ability right now!) He was also able to hide his identity from people when it suited him, and be obviously himself when it suited him. If you really want to break down how he did that, there's not enough information to say with any certainty. Did he transfigure his features to different ones, then transfigure them back? Did he cloud their perception slightly so his features weren't identifiable and they didn't think it was odd that they couldn't make them out? Was it something else? Nobody can TRUTHFULLY say which it was. So, that may have been a physical ability, or something else. But the translocational ability was obviously physical, as it affected his relation with matter and space.
BTW, we don't know he "STILL WANTED FOOD." He ASKED for food and ate it. That, obviously, was for their benefit. He might have wanted a snack also, but that wasn't necessary to get from them. We don't know if he needed food- or how often now- or if he could somehow substitute some other energy source for his body than the usual biochemical processes. We don't know. It doesn't say, and anyone who insists they DO know is guessing right along with the rest of us.]
(Except for Mark Sanguinetti, whose shoulder-blades were taken by a mad scientist for an experiment.)
Fortunately that did not happen, at least not yet. What is in harmony with WordWolf's post above and I met him year's ago when he lived in Noo Yawk, pronouncing that very large city with a New York accent. In chapter 10 of my biblical teaching book is the following:
Quote
We don’t fully see the greatness yet of who we are in Christ when we think of or envision ourselves. We sometimes don’t envision the ability of Jesus Christ to change the sin nature of mankind in future ages. In 1 Corinthians 13:12 when we see Jesus Christ face to face, we will see fully the loving and service oriented mindset and ability of the Lord Jesus Christ. Seeing Jesus Christ face to face will help us acquire more of a Christ like love and service oriented nature. As an example of more people believing in Jesus Christ when they see him face to face. My sister Jane does not believe in Jesus Christ now. I spoke with her on her birthday and asked her if she believes in Jesus Christ? She said she would only believe in Jesus Christ when she saw Jesus alive or face to face. In a recent phone conversation with her she said her favorite apostle or disciple was Thomas. From John 20:19-29, the disciple Thomas did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead until he saw Jesus with his hands alive that previously had been nailed with his crucifixion, while even needing to touch the side of Jesus before he believed that Jesus was alive. When Jesus appeared to Thomas, he finally believed that God raised Jesus from the dead, while even needing to touch Jesus.
Quoting from John 20:26-27 on this forum is the following:
Quote
John 20:26-27
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (NIV)
(Well, when we were at the Jekyll and Hyde, that mad scientist marked your shoulder blades for later, since he wanted them for an experiment, but apparently, he forgot and never collected them.)
[It's amazing how much can be invented around something really simple that was missed.
Jesus' disciples weren't picked because they were the sharpest crayons in Galilee. At least once (when Jesus walked on water), they saw something they didn't understand, freaked out, and claimed it was some kind of phantasm. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there.
In this account, Jesus showed up again, and again their first response was to freak out. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there. He went out of his way to make it clear he was a real person, physical, solid, and material. (Not some Gnostic, spirit-being "resurrection", a complete, bodily resurrection had been done.) How did he settle the issue? He had them take a blood sample, run it down to the CSI Jerusalem HQ, and when the results came back, then they knew it was him.
Oh, come on! He did the simplest thing! Here, I'm solid! I have flesh! I have bones! I'm a real person! Anyone can go up and tell with a touch whether you have flesh and bones. They can see your teeth, they can feel your skeletal structure- skull, ribs, shoulder blades. (Except for Mark Sanguinetti, whose shoulder-blades were taken by a mad scientist for an experiment.)
So, he showed them he had a human body. He let them physically touch him- I expect a few hugs were given and received, and so on. Jesus asked for food, and ate in front of him. He was solid to the touch. He had an apparent skeletal structure. He ate food. He carried on conversations. Seriously, wouldn't that settle any question of if he was real? Isn't that the most anyone would expect? He didn't mention his blood because it was completely irrelevant. If they were still not sure if it was Real Physical Jesus there, would they have been any MORE sure if Jesus grabbed a steak-knife, cut himself, and let them see the dripping blood? What would be the point of even bringing up his blood at the moment? I mean, he looked like a normal person. If he'd looked really pale, they might have suspected he was missing his blood or something, but he looked normal, and a normal person has blood circulating and giving their skin color.
As for "his body hadn't changed", ridiculous! He was able to pass physically from place to place without passing through all the places in-between. That's obviously a physical ability, and one that he didn't have before and we don't have right now. (I'd sure love to have that ability right now!) He was also able to hide his identity from people when it suited him, and be obviously himself when it suited him. If you really want to break down how he did that, there's not enough information to say with any certainty. Did he transfigure his features to different ones, then transfigure them back? Did he cloud their perception slightly so his features weren't identifiable and they didn't think it was odd that they couldn't make them out? Was it something else? Nobody can TRUTHFULLY say which it was. So, that may have been a physical ability, or something else. But the translocational ability was obviously physical, as it affected his relation with matter and space.
BTW, we don't know he "STILL WANTED FOOD." He ASKED for food and ate it. That, obviously, was for their benefit. He might have wanted a snack also, but that wasn't necessary to get from them. We don't know if he needed food- or how often now- or if he could somehow substitute some other energy source for his body than the usual biochemical processes. We don't know. It doesn't say, and anyone who insists they DO know is guessing right along with the rest of us.]
I like what you wrote above.
The only tiny disagreement is this: his body did not change from being physical to non-physical. I am guessing that his blood DID change from physical to something spiritual that I do not understand, nor have had any teaching on that i can remember. Wasn't his blood essentially drained out at the crucifixion?
Your basically saying it had to be a vision because it doesn't fit with the what vic taught you.
This is referring to the Road to Damascus scene, which is depicted in Acts THREE times. I gave the scripture refs and texts earlier. At the end of the last depiction Paul summarizes his experience of seeing Jesus thusly:
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19)
So, I am NOT "basically saying it had to be a vision because it doesn't fit with the what vic taught" as you say above. I solidly say it because the Word depicts Paul as saying it was a vision.
Another thing we can see there is that Paul could hear as well as see, because he was obedient to the words he plainly heard.
*/*/*/*/*/*
I mentioned earlier that the Road to Damascus scene was similar to Moses and the burning bush vision. Here is where I got that from (not from vic), it is from Stephen, in Acts 7:
30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
33 Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.
34 I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.
35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
*/*/*/*/
I get the impression that the angel was not lying in saying "I am the God of thy fathers..."
The impression I get is the angel was PROPHESYING, or speaking for God.
Likewise, the vision of Jesus that Paul saw and heard was a "speaking for Jesus (and God).
It is important to see ALL of what the Word says about a topic, and delete any favorite theories if the written Word says otherwise. If only one or two of the three depictions of the Road to Damascus scene are considered, then that is not the whole depiction.
*/*/*/*/*
OldSkool, again it is not VPW who taught me this vision stuff. I don't think I ever heard him teach this. I heard clues from friends I discussed things with, but not from VPW. I found things as I read my KJV. Maybe he taught it to the Corps? It is interesting to see what VPW did NOT teach. I have seen this in other places also.
his is referring to the Road to Damascus scene, which is depicted in Acts THREE times. I gave the scripture refs and texts earlier. At the end of the last depiction Paul summarizes his experience of seeing Jesus thusly:
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19)
So, I am NOT "basically saying it had to be a vision because it doesn't fit with the what vic taught" as you say above. I solidly say it because the Word depicts Paul as saying it was a vision.
Another thing we can see there is that Paul could hear as well as see, because he was obedient to the words he plainly heard.
Maybe look into what “vision” meant in Paul’s time and culture…in all 3 accounts – Paul notes the reactions of those who were with him :
Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His associates did not see the light, but heard the voice.
Acts 22:6-11, Paul said he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. In this account Paul’s companions saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded.
Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.
From what I gather in the details of these 3 accounts – it was probably NOT a vision like maybe some today would think of it being a closed circuit revelation streaming into one and only one person’s mind in a group of others. The details indicate Paul’s associates HEARD something, SAW a blinding light and FELL DOWN in REACTION to something they experienced.
Maybe look into what “vision” meant in Paul’s time and culture…in all 3 accounts – Paul notes the reactions of those who were with him :
Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His associates did not see the light, but heard the voice.
Acts 22:6-11, Paul said he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. In this account Paul’s companions saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded.
Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.
From what I gather in the details of these 3 accounts – it was probably NOT a vision like maybe some today would think of it being a closed circuit revelation streaming into one and only one person’s mind in a group of others. The details indicate Paul’s associates HEARD something, SAW a blinding light and FELL DOWN in REACTION to something they experienced.
No doubt it was a multi-media event, much like the Transfiguation scene.
But that doesn't mean it was a personal presence of JC, like the Return will be.
No doubt it was a multi-media event, much like the Transfiguation scene.
But that doesn't mean it was a personal presence of JC, like the Return will be.
But you’re thinking in modern concepts of multimedia which tries to provide as much of a virtual immersive experience as possible. Needs a lot of technology to do that. Seems like you’re trying to shoehorn Jesus’ appearance to Paul into your own interpretation of “the absent Christ”
I think it was the actual presence of Jesus Christ in whatever form he so chose for others to experience - and they all certainly experienced something phenomenal!
It is important to see ALL of what the Word says about a topic, and delete any favorite theories if the written Word says otherwise. If only one or two of the three depictions of the Road to Damascus scene are considered, then that is not the whole depiction.
How odd you didn’t do that - but I did in mentioning all 3 accounts of Paul’s conversion in my previous post.
Is it just my imagination or do you think you’re authorized to place limits on what the risen Christ can and cannot do? Reminds me of wierwille’s pontificating about what God can and cannot do.
If the Lord Jesus Christ is transcendent AND immanent I think He can do whatever He wants and physically appear however He wants whenever He wants.
FYI : I’m not interested in wierwille’s idea of a little god who answers to our beck and call and an absent savior.
Paul, a self-described Jew's Jew of Abraham's seed, writes of the Lord, the Lord Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord Christ Jesus, Jesus the Lord, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ the Lord... so often in the present tense as one not only IN but WITH.
It seems the 'present' Lord is, explicitly or implicitly, literally or figuratively, mentioned way more often than a so-called 'absent' Lord. Much more often. Dozens, maybe hundreds of instances. I am making this observation as a non-jihadist Christian - I don't have a stake in this game either way.
Anyone can do the simple math. There are too many for ME to count right now. I'm on my way to my bocce match. My time is limited, but somehow I have time to write this - a novel cop out I learned from someone here at the café.
I recently came across at least one while reading 2 Timothy. Can you find the record? Hint: it's NOT an anomaly. Just a tremendous kernel. Bless your little hearts.
Edited by Nathan_Jr Snow, so much snow. Even Aramaic snow. Pros! Meta! All the prepositions, really.
I think it was the actual presence of Jesus Christ in whatever form he so chose for others to experience - and they all certainly experienced something phenomenal!
The main thing that Jesus Christ and God did was to blind Saul until he bowed down to Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. No more murdering of disciples of Jesus Christ by Saul with the other Pharisees like he did with Stephen.
The main thing that Jesus Christ and God did was to blind Saul until he bowed down to Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. No more murdering of disciples of Jesus Christ by Saul with the other Pharisees like he did with Stephen.
An absent Jesus Christ blinded Saul? Was Saul so humbled by Jesus Christ's absence that he bowed down to him?
How odd you didn’t do that - but I did in mentioning all 3 accounts of Paul’s conversion in my previous post.
He cherry picks, presents just what he wants to make his points. I waited a couple days before responding on the Acts 9 verses where Paul and his cohorts HEARD but only saw a light and Paul was blinded and scripture NEVER says he saw anything except he refers to their experience in front of Agrippa as a vision. I think the craziest conjecture I heard was God impersonated Jesus Christ in a vision to Paul when Jesus Christ is right there with God.
It's always a cat and mouse game - a gotcha kind of mind set. Honestly, Im not really here for that so I bowed out of the conversation. I have too much peace in my life to let someone get me wound up on an internet forum. Mike trolls on purpose with an agenda pushing his actions - he wants us to re-take PFLAP. Never gonna happen.
He cherry picks, presents just what he wants to make his points. I waited a couple days before responding on the Acts 9 verses where Paul and his cohorts HEARD but only saw a light and Paul was blinded and scripture NEVER says he saw anything except he refers to their experience in front of Agrippa as a vision. I think the craziest conjecture I heard was God impersonated Jesus Christ in a vision to Paul when Jesus Christ is right there with God.
I'm trying to put ALL the scriptures on the table to sort this out.
Did you see the post about how Stephen described Moses and the burning bush?
The main thing that Jesus Christ and God did was to blind Saul until he bowed down to Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. No more murdering of disciples of Jesus Christ by Saul with the other Pharisees like he did with Stephen.
I don’t know if we should read too much into the conversion of Paul – like speculating what was the intent of God and Jesus Christ. That’s a tough one since we humans sometimes have difficulty figuring out our own motivation or that of others – let alone that of divine minds…I agree that Paul was humbled to be calling Jesus Lord – but there might be a simpler explanation of Paul’s blindness…
…it’s silly to think we can conduct an after-the-fact crime scene investigation to collect and catalog all physical evidence of Paul’s conversion scene for forensic analysis…we don’t have much to go on except for what the Bible gives us.
Why was Paul blinded and not his companions? I don’t know.
Was Paul trying to gaze on something so blindingly bright while his companions shielded their eyes? I don’t know.
Was there some divine intervention that protected the eyes of Paul’s companions but not Paul’s eyes. Maybe a flipflop variation of Daniel 3:
19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual 20 and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. 21 So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. 22 The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, 23 and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace. 24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, “Weren’t there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?” They replied, “Certainly, Your Majesty.” 25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
Why were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego invulnerable to the blazing furnace - but not the strongest soldiers in Nebuchadnezzar’s army who - upon urgent command- were tasked with tying them up and throwing them into the fire? This sounds like an X-Files episodes. Why weren’t those 3 guys killed? They went into the same situation as the soldiers. Were they aliens?
…is it possible Paul dared to look on the risen Christ and was blinded by the visage- notvision – but Christ's visage?!?!
I don’t know. I wasn’t there…and we don’t have a whole lot of info on how God and/or Jesus Christ pulled off this highly selective with pinpoint accuracy traumatic experience.
OldSkool, again it is not VPW who taught me this vision stuff. I don't think I ever heard him teach this. I heard clues from friends I discussed things with, but not from VPW. I found things as I read my KJV. Maybe he taught it to the Corps? It is interesting to see what VPW did NOT teach. I have seen this in other places also.
Fascinating…I noticed you did something similar on the NT canon thread – when I commented that your literary structure idea sounded a lot like Bullinger’s - you went on about finding it on your own and impressing the hell out of Walter when you showed it to him…
…if I didn’t know better it seems like you’re wanting to distance yourself from being associated with wierwille and Bullinger. Like that baloney of someone saying to wierwille you teach like Bullinger writes…
...it’s more like wierwille writes like Xerox copies.
if it smells like wierwille's baloney...looks like wierwille's baloney...even though someone changed the product label on the outside...it's probably still wierwille's baloney
Fascinating…I noticed you did something similar on the NT canon thread – when I commented that your literary structure idea sounded a lot like Bullinger’s - you went on about finding it on your own and impressing the hell out of Walter when you showed it to him…
…if I didn’t know better it seems like you’re wanting to distance yourself from being associated with wierwille and Bullinger. Like that baloney of someone saying to wierwille you teach like Bullinger writes…
...it’s more like wierwille writes like Xerox copies.
if it smells like wierwille's baloney...looks like wierwille's baloney...even though someone changed the product label on the outside...it's probably still wierwille's baloney
If it tastes like baloney, but it's labeled pickles, is it really apple butter?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
OldSkool
My apologies, accusing you of lying wasn't my intent at all. Mike - I sometimes wonder if we were demoralized by wierwille's behaviour and from being in a cult that constantly pushed the boundaries. One pretty consistent trait of demoralized people is you can put truth right in front of them and they will choose the reality they live in from being demoralized. I incluse myself at the top of this somewhat off topic speculation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
NOOOOOO
I am saying that Paul calls it a vision in Acts 26:19
“So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven."
That was KJV.
The vision had to have sound for Paul to be obedient to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Accepted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well. Mike, Im gonna move over to that Canon thread. We can agree to disagree. Really, theres nothing wrong with that and it's healthy in relationships. I have enjoyed the conversation though!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks much. I enjoyed the gentlemanly way things developed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*sigh*
[It's amazing how much can be invented around something really simple that was missed.
Jesus' disciples weren't picked because they were the sharpest crayons in Galilee. At least once (when Jesus walked on water), they saw something they didn't understand, freaked out, and claimed it was some kind of phantasm. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there.
In this account, Jesus showed up again, and again their first response was to freak out. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there. He went out of his way to make it clear he was a real person, physical, solid, and material. (Not some Gnostic, spirit-being "resurrection", a complete, bodily resurrection had been done.) How did he settle the issue? He had them take a blood sample, run it down to the CSI Jerusalem HQ, and when the results came back, then they knew it was him.
Oh, come on! He did the simplest thing! Here, I'm solid! I have flesh! I have bones! I'm a real person! Anyone can go up and tell with a touch whether you have flesh and bones. They can see your teeth, they can feel your skeletal structure- skull, ribs, shoulder blades. (Except for Mark Sanguinetti, whose shoulder-blades were taken by a mad scientist for an experiment.)
So, he showed them he had a human body. He let them physically touch him- I expect a few hugs were given and received, and so on. Jesus asked for food, and ate in front of him. He was solid to the touch. He had an apparent skeletal structure. He ate food. He carried on conversations. Seriously, wouldn't that settle any question of if he was real? Isn't that the most anyone would expect? He didn't mention his blood because it was completely irrelevant. If they were still not sure if it was Real Physical Jesus there, would they have been any MORE sure if Jesus grabbed a steak-knife, cut himself, and let them see the dripping blood? What would be the point of even bringing up his blood at the moment? I mean, he looked like a normal person. If he'd looked really pale, they might have suspected he was missing his blood or something, but he looked normal, and a normal person has blood circulating and giving their skin color.
As for "his body hadn't changed", ridiculous! He was able to pass physically from place to place without passing through all the places in-between. That's obviously a physical ability, and one that he didn't have before and we don't have right now. (I'd sure love to have that ability right now!) He was also able to hide his identity from people when it suited him, and be obviously himself when it suited him. If you really want to break down how he did that, there's not enough information to say with any certainty. Did he transfigure his features to different ones, then transfigure them back? Did he cloud their perception slightly so his features weren't identifiable and they didn't think it was odd that they couldn't make them out? Was it something else? Nobody can TRUTHFULLY say which it was. So, that may have been a physical ability, or something else. But the translocational ability was obviously physical, as it affected his relation with matter and space.
BTW, we don't know he "STILL WANTED FOOD." He ASKED for food and ate it. That, obviously, was for their benefit. He might have wanted a snack also, but that wasn't necessary to get from them. We don't know if he needed food- or how often now- or if he could somehow substitute some other energy source for his body than the usual biochemical processes. We don't know. It doesn't say, and anyone who insists they DO know is guessing right along with the rest of us.]
Edited by WordWolf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Fortunately that did not happen, at least not yet. What is in harmony with WordWolf's post above and I met him year's ago when he lived in Noo Yawk, pronouncing that very large city with a New York accent. In chapter 10 of my biblical teaching book is the following:
Quoting from John 20:26-27 on this forum is the following:
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
(Well, when we were at the Jekyll and Hyde, that mad scientist marked your shoulder blades for later, since he wanted them for an experiment, but apparently, he forgot and never collected them.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I like what you wrote above.
The only tiny disagreement is this: his body did not change from being physical to non-physical. I am guessing that his blood DID change from physical to something spiritual that I do not understand, nor have had any teaching on that i can remember. Wasn't his blood essentially drained out at the crucifixion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im guessing you can fit 41,423 angels on the head of a pin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is referring to the Road to Damascus scene, which is depicted in Acts THREE times. I gave the scripture refs and texts earlier. At the end of the last depiction Paul summarizes his experience of seeing Jesus thusly:
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19)
So, I am NOT "basically saying it had to be a vision because it doesn't fit with the what vic taught" as you say above. I solidly say it because the Word depicts Paul as saying it was a vision.
Another thing we can see there is that Paul could hear as well as see, because he was obedient to the words he plainly heard.
*/*/*/*/*/*
I mentioned earlier that the Road to Damascus scene was similar to Moses and the burning bush vision. Here is where I got that from (not from vic), it is from Stephen, in Acts 7:
30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
33 Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.
34 I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.
35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
*/*/*/*/
I get the impression that the angel was not lying in saying "I am the God of thy fathers..."
The impression I get is the angel was PROPHESYING, or speaking for God.
Likewise, the vision of Jesus that Paul saw and heard was a "speaking for Jesus (and God).
It is important to see ALL of what the Word says about a topic, and delete any favorite theories if the written Word says otherwise. If only one or two of the three depictions of the Road to Damascus scene are considered, then that is not the whole depiction.
*/*/*/*/*
OldSkool, again it is not VPW who taught me this vision stuff. I don't think I ever heard him teach this. I heard clues from friends I discussed things with, but not from VPW. I found things as I read my KJV. Maybe he taught it to the Corps? It is interesting to see what VPW did NOT teach. I have seen this in other places also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Maybe look into what “vision” meant in Paul’s time and culture…in all 3 accounts – Paul notes the reactions of those who were with him :
Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His associates did not see the light, but heard the voice.
Acts 22:6-11, Paul said he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. In this account Paul’s companions saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded.
Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.
From what I gather in the details of these 3 accounts – it was probably NOT a vision like maybe some today would think of it being a closed circuit revelation streaming into one and only one person’s mind in a group of others. The details indicate Paul’s associates HEARD something, SAW a blinding light and FELL DOWN in REACTION to something they experienced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No doubt it was a multi-media event, much like the Transfiguation scene.
But that doesn't mean it was a personal presence of JC, like the Return will be.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
But you’re thinking in modern concepts of multimedia which tries to provide as much of a virtual immersive experience as possible. Needs a lot of technology to do that. Seems like you’re trying to shoehorn Jesus’ appearance to Paul into your own interpretation of “the absent Christ”
I think it was the actual presence of Jesus Christ in whatever form he so chose for others to experience - and they all certainly experienced something phenomenal!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
How odd you didn’t do that - but I did in mentioning all 3 accounts of Paul’s conversion in my previous post.
Is it just my imagination or do you think you’re authorized to place limits on what the risen Christ can and cannot do? Reminds me of wierwille’s pontificating about what God can and cannot do.
If the Lord Jesus Christ is transcendent AND immanent I think He can do whatever He wants and physically appear however He wants whenever He wants.
FYI : I’m not interested in wierwille’s idea of a little god who answers to our beck and call and an absent savior.
Edited by T-BoneThe absent editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Paul, a self-described Jew's Jew of Abraham's seed, writes of the Lord, the Lord Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord Christ Jesus, Jesus the Lord, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ the Lord... so often in the present tense as one not only IN but WITH.
It seems the 'present' Lord is, explicitly or implicitly, literally or figuratively, mentioned way more often than a so-called 'absent' Lord. Much more often. Dozens, maybe hundreds of instances. I am making this observation as a non-jihadist Christian - I don't have a stake in this game either way.
Anyone can do the simple math. There are too many for ME to count right now. I'm on my way to my bocce match. My time is limited, but somehow I have time to write this - a novel cop out I learned from someone here at the café.
I recently came across at least one while reading 2 Timothy. Can you find the record? Hint: it's NOT an anomaly. Just a tremendous kernel. Bless your little hearts.
Edited by Nathan_JrSnow, so much snow. Even Aramaic snow. Pros! Meta! All the prepositions, really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The main thing that Jesus Christ and God did was to blind Saul until he bowed down to Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. No more murdering of disciples of Jesus Christ by Saul with the other Pharisees like he did with Stephen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
An absent Jesus Christ blinded Saul? Was Saul so humbled by Jesus Christ's absence that he bowed down to him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
He cherry picks, presents just what he wants to make his points. I waited a couple days before responding on the Acts 9 verses where Paul and his cohorts HEARD but only saw a light and Paul was blinded and scripture NEVER says he saw anything except he refers to their experience in front of Agrippa as a vision. I think the craziest conjecture I heard was God impersonated Jesus Christ in a vision to Paul when Jesus Christ is right there with God.
It's always a cat and mouse game - a gotcha kind of mind set. Honestly, Im not really here for that so I bowed out of the conversation. I have too much peace in my life to let someone get me wound up on an internet forum. Mike trolls on purpose with an agenda pushing his actions - he wants us to re-take PFLAP. Never gonna happen.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm trying to put ALL the scriptures on the table to sort this out.
Did you see the post about how Stephen described Moses and the burning bush?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don’t know if we should read too much into the conversion of Paul – like speculating what was the intent of God and Jesus Christ. That’s a tough one since we humans sometimes have difficulty figuring out our own motivation or that of others – let alone that of divine minds…I agree that Paul was humbled to be calling Jesus Lord – but there might be a simpler explanation of Paul’s blindness…
…it’s silly to think we can conduct an after-the-fact crime scene investigation to collect and catalog all physical evidence of Paul’s conversion scene for forensic analysis…we don’t have much to go on except for what the Bible gives us.
Why was Paul blinded and not his companions? I don’t know.
Was Paul trying to gaze on something so blindingly bright while his companions shielded their eyes? I don’t know.
Was there some divine intervention that protected the eyes of Paul’s companions but not Paul’s eyes. Maybe a flipflop variation of Daniel 3 :
19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual 20 and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. 21 So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. 22 The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, 23 and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace. 24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, “Weren’t there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?” They replied, “Certainly, Your Majesty.” 25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
Why were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego invulnerable to the blazing furnace - but not the strongest soldiers in Nebuchadnezzar’s army who - upon urgent command- were tasked with tying them up and throwing them into the fire? This sounds like an X-Files episodes. Why weren’t those 3 guys killed? They went into the same situation as the soldiers. Were they aliens?
…is it possible Paul dared to look on the risen Christ and was blinded by the visage - not vision – but Christ's visage?!?!
I don’t know. I wasn’t there…and we don’t have a whole lot of info on how God and/or Jesus Christ pulled off this highly selective with pinpoint accuracy traumatic experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
irrelevant !
This thread is about analyzing wierwille's twisted doctrine of the supposed absent Christ.
stay on topic.
you're bringing up events that are unrelated to Paul's conversion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Fascinating…I noticed you did something similar on the NT canon thread – when I commented that your literary structure idea sounded a lot like Bullinger’s - you went on about finding it on your own and impressing the hell out of Walter when you showed it to him…
…if I didn’t know better it seems like you’re wanting to distance yourself from being associated with wierwille and Bullinger. Like that baloney of someone saying to wierwille you teach like Bullinger writes…
...it’s more like wierwille writes like Xerox copies.
if it smells like wierwille's baloney...looks like wierwille's baloney...even though someone changed the product label on the outside...it's probably still wierwille's baloney
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If it tastes like baloney, but it's labeled pickles, is it really apple butter?
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.