It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Truly, truly; He will never see death

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
I was only quoting a statement made repeatedly in John's gospel.
If you want to argue with that, you are arguing with John's gospel, not me.




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Or differing interpretations.

The whole be attitudes and do unto others is all about how we behave in the world.

Its what we do and say unto others that matters. Those wanting to continue past this gravity well should consider that.


edit on 23-5-2015 by intrptr because: changed



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
The repeated statements about "hearing my word and believing" are made pretty bluntly, which doesn't seem to allow much room for interpretation.
The whole of the New Testament combines a demand for faith and a demand for right behaviour, but the consensus (even in James) is that faith comes first in order of time.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Faith without acts is… what again? Okay so we agree. Simply believing in someone isn't going to matter.

To keeping it simple.

"Faith" as presented to us is akin to hope. It allows us to continue in times of need being reassured that "if we have behave correctly" we are going to get the help we need.

Measured to us as we measured it out.

Do unto others… reap what you sow, what goes round comes round? Another religion calling it Karma, still another concept, justice.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
OK, you allude to James.
But James offers works as a way of demonstrating faith, which means that even in James faith is coming first in order of time.
I have used the metaphor of crossing a bridge; your faith that the bridge will take your weight is a necessary precondition for making the attempt.

Meanwhile, what do you propose to do about the repeated statements in John's gospel that eternal life is promised to those who "hear my word and believe it"?
You can't just dismiss them as "question of interpretation". They are blunt, and fairly inescapable.


edit on 23-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Meanwhile, what do you propose to do about the repeated statements in John's gospel that eternal life is promised to those who "hear my word and believe it"?

Anyone or everyone can hear speech or read a book.

Like witnesses to crime though, everyone has a different testimony.

Having an ear, is being tuned to the spirit of the word, not the word itself.

Believing in that (the spirit flowing through us) and acting upon it, (doing what we know to be right, or at least not doing what we know is wrong)

… is all thats required.

People who have little faith only listen to their selfish nature, only care about themselves. They don't hear anything form within because they don;t have an ear for that (decency) about others.

On the other hand some are quite caring and nurturing, going out of 'their' way and helping others, are recoiled by harmful behavior towards others,

Its a bent in our nature, a response to internal pressure, (faith, works, whatever) as opposed to those that only harm or look the other way, because they don't care or know any better.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

This discourse in the eighth chapter presents three of them in quick succession, underlining its importance.The background is that Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles.
He had been speaking to different groups of people, with the result that “many believed in him” (v30). That is, they placed their trust upon him.
He now turned to address the Jews who “believed him”. That is, they accepted what he told them, but they were not yet taking that further step of believing in him, a distinction which is very important in John’s gospel.He wants to encourage them to persevere.
If they continue “in my word”, they will be true disciples of Jesus.
“You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (v32)


This is the direct translation from what was written in Greek.

“These of him talking many believe into him said then the Iesous toward them having believed to him Judans.”

The word “into him” and “to him” is the Greek word auto.The many that “believed” into him is who he was addressing not JUST those that you are trying to segregate “believed him” as being a different way to believe.There is nothing that implies Yahoshua said this as an “encouragement of perseverance” to those “Jews” that only believed him.He just a had a major row with the Pharisees about their religious laws and he is about to drop an atom bomb on who they really are and who their father really is.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
Their first reaction to this promise is to question the implication that they are not free already.
They are the seed of Abraham, and as such they “have never been in bondage to anyone”.
Obviously this is not referring to their political circumstances, as a nation.
They may have been thinking of those passages in the Law (e.g. Leviticus ch25) which deplore the enslavement of Jews by their own people, encouraging them to acquire slaves from other nations instead.

So Jesus explains in what sense they are not free;
“Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (v34).
That is, “committing sin” as a way of life.


Commit(the Greek word poion) simply means “one doing”.The word sin (harmitia) means missing the mark of maturity.Yahoshua is not making grandiose accusational judgments of a persons “life style”.He is stating simple fact of a condition of ALL men…they are bound by immaturity(not knowing).


originally posted by: DISRAELI
As slaves, they have no status in the household, and no security.
However, the Son (namely Jesus himself) remains in the house “for ever”, and can raise them to the same privilege.“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed”.
Thus he identifies freedom from sin as the most important kind of freedom there is.


Yahoshua is stating that remaining in his word(which he has heard/understood from the father the creator God) will make someone a disciple and THEN they will know(hear/understand) the truth and THEN the truth will make them free from bondage of immaturity of “believing” religion.

Those that were arguing with him were using their religion (being born of Abrahams seed) as a subterfuge justification of why they were already free .Yahoshua was stating that is not what makes a person freed from the bondage of immaturity (sin) it is what causes it.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
But they are not likely to accept this offer.
The problem is that “my word finds no place in you”.


They do not accept Yahoshua offer because he isn’t offering what you are proposing he is only stating ….which is what he always does.The statement “my words find no place in you” are because Yahoshua’s words are the father the creator God’s word not the words of their father (religion).
You have left out what he said before ..

I know you are of Abrahams seed but you are seeking to kill me.”

He is clearly stating just because you are from the seed linage of Abraham-Issac-Israel-Judah does not make someone hear the the father the creator God.The Jews believed they were superior because of their religion. Yahoshua was setting up his premise to state their religion is meaningless.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
He gets his testimony direct from God, and their minds are closed to what comes from God.

“I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father” (v38).

They will have found this enigmatic. The explanatory words “my” and “your” are absent from many manuscripts, and certainly absent from the standardised modern version of the Greek text.
Not knowing what he is talking about, they repeat the claim that their father is Abraham.
Jesus doubts this, because their hostility to him is very unlike Abraham.
“This is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did” (vv40-41).


That is incorrect the transcripts say .. mou in Greek is “of me” humon is “of you”.

Abraham did all he did “without” a religion.This was many centuries before the Israelites performed their religious rituals and the Jews of Judah formed Judaism.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
Now that he has definitely added “your” father, they grasp that he is accusing them of having a father other than his own.


He did not add anything. You are reading into the scriptures your own meaning and justification.
edit on 23-5-2015 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Having understood the charge, they deny it, emphatically. They are not “born of fornication” (in other words, they have not been hankering after other gods).

“We have one father, even God”.
Jesus challenges this claim too.
If they were truly from God, they would feel kinship with someone sent out from God himself and following his will, and they would love him.
Their true father is the devil.
The devil has been a murderer “from the beginning” and the father of lies, making him the exact opposite of the source of Life and Truth.
This affinity with the devil means that they can only accept and understand lies. Therefore they do not believe Jesus precisely because he tells them the truth.
“He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (v47).


The word devil is translated from the Greek word diabolo which is a cognate of two words.
dia- a channel which is traversed
bollo- to be thrown through

The biggest lie that has been perpetrated by religion is “the devil” is an evil “spiritual being”.Most Christians literally believe the devil is a being called Satan who was the serpent in the garden of Eden that tempted Eve and Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and is the “God of this world”.
This is all a great dellusionment.The word satan means an adversary.It is not an evil spiritual being.The devil is an adversary that is at enmity with the the mind of the creator God.In this discourse Yahoshua has taken them down the path to show that the physical “seed” of Abraham has nothing to do with “knowing” The creator God.It is all a delusion of their religious carnal mind.(satan).

The “your father” Yahoshua is speaking of is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..religion.ALL of mankind are born with a religious nature because that is the seed of “their father they were born of.That is why Yahoshua is saying my fathers word has no place in you and you cannot hear it.They can only “hear” the word of their father ..religion..which they believe was from their physical father Abraham.

Yahoshua goes on to state ….”you are of your father[religion] and the lusts of your father is what you do.He was a liar from the beginning and did not abide in truth because there is no truth in him.When he speaks it is a lie because he speaks from his own [nature)]for he is a liar and the father of lies and because I tell you the truth you do not believe”.

That is the clear statement directly from Yahoshua.It is the reason they murdered him.He spoke (and acted) against their religion.Yahoshua is not singling out Judaism(even though it was the greatest perversion of religion at the time) he is saying ALL of religion is a lie because it is the father of lies.Yahoshua goes on to state……
” which one of you refutes me of missing the mark[sin].If I say the truth why do you not believe me”.
The Greek word elegchei is translated convinceth or convict means to refute or confute.

Yahoshua is showing them the complete disconnect and logic of what they have stated (they believe..the original premises) then goes on to say.

“He that is of the creator God hears the creator Gods words yet you do not hear because you are not of the creator God”.

The clear implication is believing religion is not of the creator God.Yahoshua was stating.. you do not believe in me you believe your religion”.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
The Jews have no answer to this.
They respond with a counter-accusation; “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (And these are supposed to be the Jews who had believed him?)
Jesus dismisses that briefly and then returns to his original theme, which is the importance of hearing his word.


Yet not before he states:
I have not a devil[religious belief] but I honor my father and you dishonor me.I do not seek my own glory there is one that seeks and judges.
edit on 23-5-2015 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
“Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death” (v51).


This follows on from the first promise, to free them from slavery to sin. For sin is the root cause of death.“Seeing” means “experiencing”, as in the promise to Nicodemus about “seeing” the kingdom of God.And of course he is talking about spiritual death, the “second death” mentioned in Revelation (ch2 v11).

Sin (religion) is not the root cause of death because..sin is death it is not “spiritual” death that is an oxymoron because spirit is LIFE.What Yahoshua is stating as “freed from bondage”is the gospel that is “hidden” that cannot be perceived” by the eyes of religion that they are already dead!They are in the bondage of Hades(the realm of death and imperception).

To “keep” Yahoshua words is to receive them/to know them.Yahoshua has been stating all along that belief in religion will not free anyone from the bondage of the religion. Only keeping the words of LIFE will.It is axiomatic.The Jews who believed in him did not believe and keep his words from the father the creator God because they couldn’t.The words they keep are from their father the father of lies..their religion.

The 2nd death(the lake of fire) John saw in the unveiling (revelation) was the death(by baptism) of a persons “religion” not the infinite punishment of hell or annihilation of the person.. but the death of their religion.Yahoshua called this the eternal(aion which means age lasting) fire.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
As usual, the Jews take this promise very literally, and assume that he’s talking about physical death.In that case, it seems absurd. Everybody experiences physical death.
Abraham and the prophets could not even escape death themselves.
He is offering something which Abraham could not offer, so is he claiming to be greater than Abraham?The answer is that Abraham himself was able to know and take advantage of the same offer;“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad” (v56).He “saw” it, that is, with the eye of faith. And perhaps he has already “experienced” it in renewed life.


Yahoshua was not offering Abraham anything.Yahoshua is saying Abraham already got it.He fled from his fathers religions and came to”know” the creator God by experience.Abraham was not encumbered by the religion-religion of man.

Contrary to popular belief Abraham is not the father of the desert religions.He was not an Israelite because Jacob/Israel was his grandson. He was certainly not a Jew because that was the religion of the tribe of Judah his great great grandson he never knew.The day of Yahoshua (Yahweh is deliverence /salvation) for Abraham was the deliverance from his fathers many religions.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
Once again, the Jews understand the statement in the most literal way.
If Abraham saw Jesus, that must mean he and Abraham were living at the same time.
Naturally they doubt this.
“You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
(This is not telling us that Jesus looked more than forty years old. The point is that even the round number of fifty years does not compare with the interval since Abraham’s time.)

Jesus does not try to put them straight.
Instead, he takes up the challenge. “As old as Abraham? I’m older!”
“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (v58).


Yahoshua was stating before Abraham there was Yahoshua(Yahweh is deliverance).Yahweh means ….I will be what I will be ….commonly translated as…. I am the I am or I am.He was NOT stating he was born before Abraham or was the Yahweh the father the creator God.Yahoshua is the soon/seed of the creator God Yahweh.


originally posted by: DISRAELI
This prompts them to take up stones to throw at him, because they understand exactly what he means.He has identified himself with the Creator God, the source of Life. This is the same claim that is made on his behalf in the opening words of the gospel.Only on that basis can he fulfil the promises he’s been making about the effect of his word, that it will free them from slavery to sin and save them from death.


Yahoshua said…” If I honor MYSELF my honor is nothing.It is my father that honors me of whom you say he is YOUR God”

They took up stones to kill him because they are of their father..religion..the liar murderer.They did NOT know who Yahweh or Yahoshua were.They had a twisted belief that Yahweh was THEIR GOD .Yahoshua NEVER claimed to be the father the creator God he clearly stated I am the son/seed of the creator God..Yahoshua.He clearly stated if I honor (doxazo..which means extol,magnify) myself it means nothing.It was the father that honored him by to be the son/seed.

Christianity is even more blind than the Jews were.They believe their Jesus is the creator GOD! when Yahoshua never said that.Those that “believe” Jesus was a good guy a wise man a prophet but not God are blind also(in a different way).Yahoshua never said that either he clearly stated I am the son of the creator God not some good guy starting a new religion.The crux of this discourse with those Jews who believe into him was.

“If you continue in my word you are truly my disciple THEN you will KNOW the truth and then the truth will make you free”.

The continuing in my word is hearing from the father the creator God (revelation) which is “knowing” not believing because believing is superfluous. Anyone can say they believe but unless they experience it and act in it is a false belief(trust) in nothing.This is the statement of truth Yahoshua made to the Jews that believed into him and made to the Christians by way of the new testimony that testifies of Yahoshua.It is impossible to hear the word of the creator God through religion…any religion.A little leaven leavens the whole lump.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
The word “into him” and “to him” is the Greek word auto.The many that “believed” into him is who he was addressing not JUST those that you are trying to segregate “believed him” as being a different way to believe.

V30 says there were many who "believed in him"- EIS AUTON.
V31 says he spoke to the Jews who "had believed him"- AUTO.
The distinction in meaning between EIS AUTON and AUTO is one that I have borrowed from my main commentator, Bishop Westcott, who was something of an expert in the Greek language. It stands up over the rest of the gospel (and I've written a thread on it for future use).


That is incorrect the transcripts say .. mou in Greek is “of me” humon is “of you”.

I stand by the textual comments I made here.
I have the Nestle-Aland text in front of me now. The words MOU and HUMON are missing from their text of v38, which is what I was talking about. Their footnotes show that the words are present in some manuscripts, which I admitted. But if Jesus made the distinction in v38, instead of waiting for v41, it is not easy to explain why the Jews did not react to it the first time.




edit on 23-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
it is not “spiritual” death that is an oxymoron because spirit is LIFE.

Since the Spirit is Life, the absence of the Spirit is death. I used the phrase "spiritual death" to distinguish this condition from physical death, to show that I was not talking about physical death. It is a reasonable and convenient phrase to use for the purpose.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




Paul, and perhaps the community of his time, are using the word "sleep" to convey their confident faith that those believers who have died are not "finally" dead.
I don't see any contradictions here.


Nonsense! It's plain to see that you have two different models of eternal life. The model that Jesus provides offers eternal life NOW, whereas, Paul's model offers eternal life later, at the end of the world.



Why did Paul get Jesus' appearance after the resurrection wrong? Jesus, according to the Gospels, appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to a group of disciples, but not all of them.

Where do any of the gospels claim to be listing every single appearance of the resurrected Jesus?


Oh come on! The gospels clearly explain that Mary Magdalene was the fist to see the risen Jesus in the flesh. Paul's examples are NOT in line with the gospels and ARE referring only to a celestial Jesus, not a Jesus in the flesh.



The expectation that Christ will "return" to us and bring a general resurrection matches what is said in this gospel;
"The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgement" (ch5 v25).


That already happened, according to the Gospels, on the day that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

There is no doubt that 1 Corinthians, Ch15 is a mish mash of Old Testament Jewish Tradition, Essene, Hellenized Jewish influence (Plutarch's Osiris-Philo's LOGOS) with a smattering the Eleusinian Mysteries, as evidenced here: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"



He would have found "rising on the third day" in the same place that the church has always found it since his time; Hosea ch6 v2. They also found it implied in what happened to Jonah.



Hosea ch6 v2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.


WOW! That's quite an apologetic stretch, even for you! However, if you wan't to use that scripture, then it is WE that rise on the 3rd day, not the Lord.

What happened to Jonah? He disobeyed God and he got punished by being swallowed by a big fish, the vomited up. Is that what Paul thought happened to Jesus Christ?



Neither Jesus nor Paul suggest that eternal life relates to the soul.
In this gospel, Jesus talks of new life as the consequence of being "born anew" through the Holy Spirit.


That's so messed up and convoluted!


"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined


What Jesus said about being "born again" was not new or breaking news. He chastised Nicodemus for being a religious leader and not understanding the concept of eternal life.

If eternal life doesn't relate to the soul, what does it relate to? New bodies for who or what?



As in the case of all these silly quibbles which you are finding, they are slightly different ways of saying the same thing.


No. They prove that you are operating with two different models of eternal life, Paul's and Jesus', thinking they are the same when they're not, and therefore, you're making no sense at all!



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Paul's examples are NOT in line with the gospels and ARE referring only to a celestial Jesus, not a Jesus in the flesh.

There is no visible difference whatever between the risen Jesus described in the gospels and the risen Jesus mentioned by Paul. It is positively absurd to manufacture such a difference out of minor discrepancies between the lists of people who saw him.
Both versions are compatible with Paul's doctrine of the transformed body



That [resurrection] already happened, according to the Gospels, on the day that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

In your enthusiasm to make the text do what you want, you fail to observe the crucial word "ALL".
What happened on that day was only a sample.
It is certainly not supposed in any part of the New Testament that the resurrection of ALL who are in the tombs has already taken place, or that the grand judgement which follows this event has already taken place.


WOW! That's quite an apologetic stretch, even for you!

Why "for you"? That's coming from the early church, not from me.
You asked me where Paul was getting his prophecies from, and I told you.
In fact the way the early church connected these texts with "rising on the third day" is such a commonplace piece of New Testament knowledge that I was a little surprised at your ignorance in asking the question.


What Jesus said about being "born again" was not new or breaking news. He chastised Nicodemus for being a religious leader and not understanding the concept of eternal life.

He told Nicodemus that he should have understood being "born again".
But we don't know that any of the other religious teachers of Israel managed any better.


If eternal life doesn't relate to the soul, what does it relate to? New bodies for who or what?

I hope you're not expecting a detailed explanation of how it would work.
I don't think any of us in this life are capable of understanding that, for the same reason that an ocean-living animal could not understand an explanation of what it would be like to live on land and breathe in an atmosphere.

All I can do is repeat what I've already said about what Paul said.
But I should point out first that the PSYCHE or "soul" in Paul's language is not the mediaeval concept of the detachable spiritual entity.
For the Greeks of Paul's time- When you think, your soul is doing the thinking. When you feel pain in your toe, your soul is doing the feeling (which they regarded as evidence that the soul fills every part of the body). When you move an arm, your soul is doing the moving. In other words, it carries out the functions which we attribute to the brain and the nervous system.

Now Paul says that our resurrection body relates to our present body by analogy with the way that a grown plant relates to the seed. In other words, they won't be the same, but there will be a continuity.
He says that our present body is PSYCHIKOS (based on the word PYSCHE).
Our resurrection body will be PNEUMATIKOS (based on the word PNEUMA).
As Conzelmann observes, this distinction is not directly about the material of the two bodies. If Paul had been drawing this contrast, he would have called our present body SARKIKOS ("fleshly") rather than PYSCHIKOS.
Rather, the difference is that one relates to/is governed by the soul, while the other relates to/is governed by the Spirit.
Until we are in a position to experience for ourselves, that is as close as I can get.



edit on 24-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

edit on 24-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




There is no visible difference whatever between the risen Jesus described in the gospels and the risen Jesus mentioned by Paul.


Of course there is! The resurrected Jesus of the Gospels was flesh and blood!

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.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate before them.


Paul never saw a flesh and blood Jesus, resurrected or otherwise. Paul's Jesus, as well as the Jesus of ALL Christians today, is considered a celestial being.



In your enthusiasm to make the text do what you want, you fail to observe the crucial word "ALL".


Oh please! Jesus was just teasing us with a temporary faux resurrected body, raising some of the dead, healing some of the sick and feeding some of the hungry......fulfilling some of the prophecy.....



Why "for you"? That's coming from the early church, not from me.


BS! Show me the commentary!


how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Show me the scripture!


4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Show me the scripture!


I hope you're not expecting a detailed explanation of how it would work.
I don't think any of us in this life are capable of understanding that, for the same reason that an ocean-living animal could not understand an explanation of what it would be like to live on land and breathe in an atmosphere.


Then what's the Bible for? Here's your detailed explaination.


Zachariah 3
And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

2 And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.




He told Nicodemus that he should have understood being "born again".
But we don't know that any of the other religious teachers of Israel managed any better.


John the Baptist comes to mind. After all, that's what the ritual that baptism represents, resurrection and being born again.



Now Paul says that our resurrection body relates to our present body by analogy with the way that a grown plant relates to the seed.


I think Paul was an idiot, but I'm not arguing what kind of body the resurrected body is, although I you know that I believe that reincarnation is a reality. I'm arguing about the "when". Jesus offered eternal life "NOW", whereas Paul's model offers it at the end of the world. Not really very comforting, in my opinion.


edit on 24-5-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Of course there is! The resurrected Jesus of the Gospels was flesh and blood!

Yet not quite ordinary flesh and blood.
We've been through this before. He could arrive in a room instantly. Or leave again in the same way. Look at the account of the Ascension in Acts. Does ordinary flesh and blood do that?
There is a degree of difference there, and that's what Paul anticipates about our own resurrection bodies. Continuity, but not quite the same.
And what Paul says about the resurrection appearances of Jesus is that "he appeared". How does that differ from what we find in the gospels?


Oh please! Jesus was just teasing us with a temporary faux resurrected body, raising some of the dead, healing some of the sick and feeding some of the hungry......fulfilling some of the prophecy.....

I was challenging your claim that "All those who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" has been fulfilled already.
I must repeat; It is NOT yet true that ALL those who were in the tombs have come out of them again. Or perhaps you will claim to have seen them?
Nor have we seen the grand final judgement which Jesus indicates as the next event.


BS! Show me the commentary!

Be careful about what you ask for, my child, because you might get it.
Not just one commentary, but two of them.

Let's begin with the International Critical Commentary, by Robertson and Plummer. Edinburgh 1911

"On the third day" does not harmonise well with a perfect, but it is added as of importance (1) as evidence of a bodily resurrection (comp. Acts ii 24f) and (2) to show the exact coincidence with prophecy (Hosea vi 2; comp Ps xvi 10,11; xvii 15-24). Christ is said to have included "on the third day" in what was predicted in scripture (Luke xxiv 46).
[They add in a footnote a quotation from Sanday];
"The third day" is hardly less rooted in the tradition of the church than the Resurrection itself. We have it not only in the speech ascribed to St. Peter (Acts x 40) but in the central testimony of Paul and then in the oldest form of the Apostles' Creed.


Next the Hermeneia comentary, by Conzelmann. Philadelphia 1975

"On the third day" is a standing date for the resurrection of Jesus. How did it arise?...
So there remains a fifth possibility alongside the first;
5) The date was derived from Scripture. The phrase KATA TAS GRAPHAS, "according to the scriptures", presumably refers here, too, not only to EGEGERTAI, "he was raised", but to the whole statement.
The allusion is indicated in the same general way as that to Isa. 53. It can only be to Hos 6:2.
[Again, we find additional observations in the footnotes];
Delling points out that the Targum has altered the text: "He will revive us in the days of consolation which shall come in the future; on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up that we may live before him"...
Lindars reckons that the expression goes back to Jesus himself, who used it in the sense of a short interval... The resurrection on the third day then led to the literal prophecy being discovered in the Hosea passage.


So you see, as I told you, the association of Paul's remark with Hosea ch6 v2 is commonplace in New Testament studies.
If you had known anything about New Testament studies, you would have known that already, and that's why I was surprised.

Are you a teacher in Israel, and you do not know these things?



edit on 24-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




I was challenging your claim that "All those who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" has been fulfilled already.
I must repeat; It is NOT yet true that ALL those who were in the tombs have come out of them again. Or perhaps you will claim to have seen them?


There are no souls asleep in their tombs, period! The opening of the tombs on the day of the crucifixion was symbolic of that. Death was conquered on Calvary, remember?


Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;




Be careful about what you ask for, my child, because you might get it.
Not just one commentary, but two of them.


Don't talk down to me. I'm quite sure that I'm older than you.

Neither of those commentaries address any of Paul's assertion, or present any prophecy that "The Christ" died for sin, as Paul wrote; "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;". Please show where THAT is written.



On the third day" is a standing date for the resurrection of Jesus. How did it arise?...


That doesn't address the issue in question!

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" You commentaries merely address the fact that Jewish tradition dictated that the resurrected rise on the 3rd day, not that scripture prophesied that "The Christ" will resurrect.

We've already been through this too......Hosea; After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence. doesn't refer to Paul's "Christ" being risen, it's about US. Paul's "Christ" was risen from the dead, not a dead man that was resurrected.


But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.




Are you a teacher in Israel, and you do not know these things?


I know lies when I read them. There is no scripture that explains Paul's assertions.

Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, wasn't a manifestation of an arisen bunch of dead people that lived before him.

The Jesus of the Gospels offers eternal life NOW, not later.



Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."



edit on 24-5-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
There are no souls asleep in their tombs, period! The opening of the tombs on the day of the crucifixion was symbolic of that. Death was conquered on Calvary, remember?

If you go and dig up a grave, anywhere in the world, you are likely to find a body there.
The general resurrection has not yet occurred.
The events on that day were symbolic of what would happen.


Neither of those commentaries address any of Paul's assertion, or present any prophecy that "The Christ" died for sin, as Paul wrote; "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;". Please show where THAT is written.

I confined my quotation to what was relevant to the topic of the thread.
If you want to know what prophecies Paul used to quote in the other context, you can search his letters for yourself.


Hosea; After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence. doesn't refer to Paul's "Christ" being risen, it's about US.

We have not been arguing about whether Paul and the early church were right to make this connection with Hosea.
The argument was about whether they DID make this connection with Hosea.
The stages were
1) You asked me where Paul would have got his prophecy from.
2) I told you.
3) You accused me of making it up.
4) I proved emphatically that I was not making it up. There is a general scholarly consensus about the way Paul and the early church were using the Old Testament passages.


Paul's "Christ" was risen from the dead, not a dead man that was resurrected.

I don't understand what you think the difference is.
"From the dead" means that he used to be among the dead, as one of their number, and now he is raised instead. As far as I can see, that's the same thing as being a dead man who has been raised.
Your quest for differences is getting a little over-ingenious.


Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, wasn't a manifestation of an arisen bunch of dead people that lived before him.

I'm not aware that anyone is making that claim.


edit on 24-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




If you go and dig up a grave, anywhere in the world, you are likely to find a body there.


So, here you are, dancing the graves of dead saints, preaching a resurrection and a promise of eternal life that won't happen until God's creation is utterly destroyed. You're not preaching what Jesus taught, which is "the faithful" will NOT die, even though their bodies have become corpses.


nd He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." 60But He said to him, "Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God."




I confined my quotation to what was relevant to the topic of the thread.
If you want to know what prophecies Paul used to quote in the other context, you can search his letters for yourself.


It IS certainly relevant to this thread, as you introduced the chapter in the OP, as an additional explanation to Jesus' teachings on eternal life. The purpose of my posting in your thread is to point out that Paul's model of eternal life is different than that of Jesus of Nazareth's. I'm using 1 Corinthians 13 to point that out to you.



We have not been arguing about whether Paul and the early church were right to make this connection with Hosea.
The argument was about whether thye DID make this connection with Hosea.
The stages were
1) You asked me where Paul would have got his prophecy from.
2) I told you.
3) You accused me of making it up.
4) I proved emphatically that I was not making it up. There is a general scholarly consensus about the way Paul and the early church were using the Old Testament passages.


I didn't accuse you of making it up, I accused Paul of that. You have refused to address the question. The question isn't "Where did the New Testament get the 3 day rule?". The question is "Where is the Old Testament scripture that says "The Christ" dies for our sins?" Where is the Scripture that predicts "Christ's" resurrection? There isn't any. That's why you're dancing around the issue. You have no answer, you're just pretending that you do.



"From the dead" means that he used to be among the dead, as one of their number, and now he is raised instead. As far as I can see, that's the same thing as being a dead man who has been raised.
Your quest for differences is getting a little over-ingenious.



But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.


According to Paul, Christ became the (first)fruit of the dead; of them that slept. Plural! I think you're the one being "a little over-ingenious".


edit on 24-5-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
[He died for our sins] IS certainly relevant to this thread, as you introduced the chapter in the OP, as an additional explanation to Jesus' teachings on eternal life.

No, that is not how the topic of a thread is defined.
You might as well say "You quoted 1 Corinthians, so I can bring in anything from 1 Corinthians".
In fact the argument is not so far removed from the bullying egotistic trolls who say "You are quoting from the Bible, so anything in the Bible that I want to talk about must be on-topic".
The topic of this thread is the promise of eternal life. I quoted from 1 Corinthians ch15 only with reference to that topic, and that is all I'm going to discuss.


I didn't accuse you of making it up,

You did indeed accuse me of making it up.
Here is the relevant piece of dialogue;


"Why "for you"? That's coming from the early church, not from me."
BS! Show me the commentary!

The exclamation "BS!" was applied directly to my own statement that a line of interpretation came from the early church and not from me, the one you quoted just above it.
In short, you refused to believe that the early church thought that way, accused me of inventing that line of interpretation myself, and demanded to see commentaries to prove that I wasn't.
I then vindicated myself by producing the relevant commentaries.


According to Paul, Christ became the (first)fruit of the dead; of them that slept. Plural! I think you're the one being "a little over-ingenious".

That retort is still not offering an explanation of the alleged difference between "risen from the dead" and "dead man raised".
I was referring to this enigmatic statement;

Paul's Christ was a man risen from the dead, not a dead man that was resurrected.


When you've discovered a difference, you can then move on to explaining the similar differences between "freed from the captives" and "liberated captive"; between "money taken out of the safe" and "extracted money".




edit on 25-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join