The bible is rather boring

last SG · 2006-09-28T10:30:57+00:00

errrrr.............congrats to you but i really cannot catch the flow. anyways....nevermind.

davidche SG

One has to read the bible roughly 5 times before one can understand the truness of it. The links in between verses and scriptures

Ironside SG

Don't keep on harping on physical resurrection. Furthermore, the term 'physical' here is vague.

I already clarified, many posts before, that I am not defending my using of the term spiritual. I am sorry to confuse you.

The issue has always been whether the resurrection talked about is full of holes or glorified.

The OT, common Jewish folks in 1st century Palestine (exemplied by Lazarus' sister), and Paul (who exemplified the educated rabbi) all thinks it is the glorified version.

It was you who tried to bring the glorified version and the holes version, as accounted by the gospel and acts, together.

Then suddenly, you mention that 1 Cor is actually talking about the Second Coming!! What does the Second Coming Resurrection have to do with Gospel Account Resurrection?!

I dunno whether the humble pie is in your mouth now or not. Or have you swallowed it without telling us?

Don't keep on harping on physical resurrection. Furthermore, the term 'physical' here is vague.

Liberals have been denying the resurrection of the Christ by insisting that Christs did not actually rose from the dead physically. Whereas the apostles insist that the Lord Jesus Christ rose physically. It is a major doctrine in Christianity.

Furthermore, the term 'physical' here is vague.

I have already shown that Paul taught that Christ resurrected physically ACCORDING TO THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES.

NEVER SAID WHAT KIND OF RESURRECTION? IT SAYS 'RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD'

what kind of death did Paul knew the Lord Jesus experienced. Was it a spiritual kind of death? Was He not buried in the tomb? A physical place, a physical sepulchre?

"and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,"

By 'buried' here was Paul referring to the immaterial part of teh Lord Jesus? Do you actually believe that Paul was saying here: and that He was buried spiritually and that He rose again the thrid day according to the Scriptures.

What "Scipture" is Paul referring here? Obviously he was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. What did the Old Testament Scriptures say? That He will raise from the dead PHYSCIALLY.

The Old Testament said that Christ would resurrect physically. Then you said in effect that the Old Test. Scriptures has to be examined first if they indeed taught PHYSICAL RESURRECTION. Well here it is, a short one: You agreed that in Acts the resurrection is a physical one. In Acts 2 Peter quoted a resurrection verse showing that the Christ would resurrect physically in Acts 2:24-31. He quoted OT verses [verses 25-28] to support his claim of the physical resurrection [verses 29-31].

Paul obviously referred to this verse amongst many to support his teaching of a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION when he said :according to the Scriptures Paul and Peter were on the same line in their teaching about the resurrection.

I already clarified, many posts before, that I am not defending my using of the term spiritual. I am sorry to confuse you.

No need to apologize my friend. That's why I asked you: What do you mean by SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST?

the issue has always been whether the resurrection talked about is full of holes or glorified.

I apologize because i did not get that in your first few statements. Re-read it again:

Is it any wonder the first books to be written, i.e. the Pauline epistles, never specifically mention about the resurrection of the flesh, the resurrection account?

I said resurrection of the flesh .. duh.

The gospels actually talk about physical resurrection whereas the apostle Paul saw the resurrected Christ in the spiritual.

The epistles never made clear that it was a physical resurrection. The way Paul described the resurrection (so glorified) doesn't match a physical resurrection.

I dont really know what you understand about the resurrection. Seems to me that to you there are two resurrections-holes version and glorified version.

It is confusing because the resurrection itself is the glorification of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact in the doctrine of salvation, our [Christians] glorification is based on His glorification [resurrection from the dead].

Question: When was the Lord Jesus Christ glorified? When He resurrected from the dead.

Question: When will the believer be glorified? When the Lord Jesus Christ comes the second time to rapture His own to resurrect them and transform their lowly bodies to conform His.

You seem to be familiar with Christian doctrine. Havent you heard about the 3 aspects of salvation?

OT, common Jewish folks in 1st century Palestine (exemplied by Lazarus' sister), and Paul (who exemplified the educated rabbi) all thinks it is the glorified version.

No problem. The resurrection is the glorification of the Lord Jesus Christ. When He resurrected from the dead on the third day that was His glorification.

Joh 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

He was talking about His death and subsequent resurrection here. Notice the following verses:

Joh 12:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.

He was the grain of wheat that fell into the ground but when He arose from the dead it will produce much grain. Grain that dies produces much grain according to His parable.
What an echo of Pauls:

1Co 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

1Co 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.

The Lord Jesus Christ was the prototype [firstfruits] of those who will be resurrected into the likeness of His glorious resurrected body. And all this glory reserved for the Christians are based on His glorification [resurrection].

It was you who tried to bring the glorified version and the holes version, as accounted by the gospel and acts, together.

I have studied theology for a long time. I have sat under professors and Bible teachers countless times. I have read books on theology and etc. I have yet to encounter one theologian who teaches that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospels [which you call holes version] is not the same with the resurrection in the Pauline epistles [which you call glorified version].

Why? Because these men understood that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospels is His glorification.

Joh 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

Hours after He said this, He was then betrayed, unlawfully arraigned and eventually crucified on the cross only to rise from the dead the third day.

Then suddenly, you mention that 1 Cor is actually talking about the Second Coming!! What does the Second Coming Resurrection have to do with Gospel Account Resurrection?!

May I quote you again so that you can see why I answered you this way:

And what happens next is the famous story of Lazarus.

So Lazarus did rise .. only to die later!

This is the Jewish understanding of resurrection - it should happen on the last day. And the bodies should be glorified, definitely not with holes.
Which is why Ben's theory is good .. they were expecting Jesus to come soon 'cos His resurrection signifies that the end is near

My answer to this is:

1Co 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

the word 'firstfruits' have some idea of prototype there. The text is saying: Jesus' resurrection from the dead is a prototype of those who would be resurrected later in the Second Coming of Christ.

Since the Lord Jesus' resurrection is physical, it follows that the believers in Him would be resurrected physically also. Becauze the resurrection of the just is according to the prototype--the Lord Jesus'- which is a physical resurrection.

by the way about the resurrection of the of the saved and the Second Coming, here it is:

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.

then verse 23 says:

1Co 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.
And what happens next is the famous story of Lazarus.

So Lazarus did rise .. only to die later!

His resurrection was not the glorification aspect of salvation. He did not possess the incorruptible body promised at glorification. [you know a lot of Christian doctrinesfor sure you know these things].

This is the Jewish understanding of resurrection - it should happen on the last day. And the bodies should be glorified, definitely not with holes.

Yes, they did not also understood that there are two resurrections. The resurrection of the saved and the resurrection of the unsaved. I mean they do not know that it will be intervened by 1000 years. Oh yes, glorified bodies of saved persons will be perfected and glorious. No holes The Lord Jesus glorified body with the pierced side and etc. is peculiar to Him. You see when saved people get glorified [resurrected] they will not actually possess a body exactly like that of the Lord Jesus. I mean their faces would still be their faces not the Lord Jesus. Their hands would still be their hands not the Lord Jesus and etc.

What glorification means for the believer is that they will possess a body LIKE that of the Lord Jesus---INCORRUPTIBLE, IMMORTAL and PERFECTED.

I dunno whether the humble pie is in your mouth now or not. Or have you swallowed it without telling us?

What has the humble pie got to do with our topic my friend? Are you the type of guy that involves his ego and pride when talking to someone in the internet? A certain someone whom you have not seen personally and will probably not met in your life, a certain someone whom you do not know his name? Are you like that? If not, then why ask this question?

Is this conversation of ours a matter of winning and losing to you my friend? Or is it just a simple exchange of ideas on the INTERNET? If no. then why the humble pie question?

Icemoon SG

Circular argument, if there is any argument at all. Laughing

Paul obviously referred to this verse amongst many to support his teaching of a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION when he said :according to the Scriptures Paul and Peter were on the same line in their teaching about the resurrection.

I never once claim that the resurrection is not physical. So don't try to enact a strawman.

Furthermore, I'm not interested in any character who never wrote the epistles and gospels in question.

Question: When was the Lord Jesus Christ glorified? When He resurrected from the dead.

Question: When will the believer be glorified? When the Lord Jesus Christ comes the second time to rapture His own to resurrect them and transform their lowly bodies to conform His.

I say this again - there is NO evidence that the Jesus Christ of Paul is the Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and Acts.

The reasoning is simple:

1. Paul wrote his epistles before Acts and the gospels. It is a mistake to ignore this when doing a textual analysis.

2. Paul claimed that he owed nothing to the pillars in the Jerusalem Church. Everything about Christ, He got himself without any input from the apostles.

3. You ignored the problematic verse in Cor where Paul claimed to see the same Christ that appeared to Cephas and the other apostles.

4. The earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, did not develop the resurrection account. My bible divides the ending into the longer and shorter ending. The shorter ending did not have the resurrection account.

You seem to be familiar with Christian doctrine. Havent you heard about the 3 aspects of salvation?

I want to distance myself from doctrines and re-examine Scripture from an analytical point of view.

No problem. The resurrection is the glorification of the Lord Jesus Christ. When He resurrected from the dead on the third day that was His glorification.

You trying to kid who? A glorified body with holes?

I have studied theology for a long time. I have sat under professors and Bible teachers countless times. I have read books on theology and etc. I have yet to encounter one theologian who teaches that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospels [which you call holes version] is not the same with the resurrection in the Pauline epistles [which you call glorified version].

Do you read books by Bishop Spong? Marcus Borg? John Dominic Crossan?

These are professors in famous universities and Spong is in charge of a big parish as well.

What has the humble pie got to do with our topic my friend? Are you the type of guy that involves his ego and pride when talking to someone in the internet? A certain someone whom you have not seen personally and will probably not met in your life, a certain someone whom you do not know his name? Are you like that? If not, then why ask this question?

Why are you so defensive now?

I'm quite disappointed with your reply. After a million lines, I still do not see any historical or textual analysis in your reply.

I just give you a simple example to illustrate your kind of reasoning:

Person A today - There is a red New Zealand apple on the table.
Person B tomorrow - There is a New Zealand apple on the table.

Ironside - they are talking about the same apple from NZ! Person B says got apple, which is what person A was saying.

Do you see the fallacy?

Herzog_Zwei SG

Religion is about programming people to believe.

whereismyrib SG

People who don't believe are programmed by the world not to believe. Mr. Green

Herzog_Zwei SG

Tell me about the hermits... Mr. Green

davidche SG

Wait wait, i thought circular arguments are supposed to be bad? how come ice is doing it?

Icemoon SG

I made circular arguments?

Got meh? Embarassed

Ironside SG

Your words in bold:

I never once claim that the resurrection is not physical. So don't try to enact a strawman.

You said that the resurrection in the gospels was a physical resurrection and in Paul's epistles it was different.

your words:

Is it any wonder the first books to be written, i.e. the Pauline epistles, never specifically mention about the resurrection of the flesh, the resurrection account?

By your mention of the word "flesh" i take it to mean a physical body.

then i quoted Paul. I cited verses that said Christ resurrected. then you answered:

I said resurrection of the flesh .. duh.

The gospels actually talk about physical resurrection whereas the apostle Paul saw the resurrected Christ in the spiritual.

The epistles never made clear that it was a physical resurrection. The way Paul described the resurrection (so glorified) doesn't match a physical resurrection

The resurrection you perceive and Paul perceived is the spiritual resurrection. Where you get a new body and all that.

Then i contended that Paul taught a physical resurrection just like what the Gospels taught. I have been trying to show in my previous post that Paul taught a resurrection similar to that of the gospels. This is our topic. this is not a strawman.

here's a sample:

read the writings of the saints in the Bible, They say it is a physical resurrection PAUL INCLUDED. so why conclude about the REsurrection of Christ that it was spiritual? Witnesses say it was a glorious resurrection.

you have not witnessed the resurrection of Christ. So why say that His resurrection was spiritual in Paul's letters?

then you replied:

If you argue that Paul was referring to a bodily resurrection - prove it! Prove it from Gal and 1 Thes .. the first books to be written.

then you stated this:

Anyway, I am not defending my using of the term. You can call it anything you like, the point is Paul never wrote enough to convince us that it was a bodily resurrection - with holes included.

Since you want proof that Paul was referring to a physical resurrection. Can i prove it not from Galatians and 1 Thes.? Can I prove it from Paul's words earlier than Galatians and 1 Thessalonians? Since you said:

Is it any wonder the first books to be written, i.e. the Pauline epistles, never specifically mention about the resurrection of the flesh, the resurrection account?

I asked you to confirm your belief about the resurrection in Acts that from that book the resurrection referred there is physical. You said "yes" Acts refer to a physical resurrection. here's your statement:

Acts and the gospel accounts, yes.

The physical resurrection - full of holes version.

Do not confuse with your version of physical resurrection - the glorified version, also the version of Paul.

Your contention is that the gosples portray a different resurrection than that in the Pauline episitles. You asked for proof from Paul's earliest letters that Paul was indeed talking about a physical resurrection. What about I show you from Paul that he was talking about a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION SIMILLAR TO THAT OF THE GOSPELS, SIMILAR TO THAT OF PETER IN ACTS.

IN ACTS CHAPTER 13: 31 TO 38 PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. HE CITED PSALMS 16 TO PROVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES [OT] SPOKE OF THIS. PSALMS 16 THE SAME PSALM PETER QUOTED TO PROVE THAT THE CHRIST WOULD RESURRECT PHYSICALLY IN ACTS 2.

Paul and Peter used the same Scripture to show that the Christ would resurrect. Peter interpreted Pslams 16 as a physical resurrection to which you agree because you said ACts spoke of a physical resurrection.

And remember ACTS 13 is after the Damascus conversion of Paul when he saw the the risen Lord. Did Paul and Peter talked on the same lines about the resurrection? Yes. compare Acts 2 and Acts 13.

I say this again - there is NO evidence that the Jesus Christ of Paul is the Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and Acts.

refer above.

You ignored the problematic verse in Cor where Paul claimed to see the same Christ that appeared to Cephas and the other apostles.

There is no problem to that verse with regards to the resurrection of tbe Lord Jesus Christ. I don't know why it should be a problem.

I want to distance myself from doctrines and re-examine Scripture from an analytical point of view.

that's all fine. But can i givd an unsolicited advice. You can never get to the bottom of the Scriptures without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Why not repent first and trust in Christ alone for salvation before you can understand His book by the help of the Holy Spirit.

1Co 2:13 And these are the things which we say, not in the language of man's wisdom, but in words given to us by the Spirit, judging the things of the spirit by the help of the Spirit.

14 For the natural man is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to him, and he is not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit.

You trying to kid who? A glorified body with holes?

His resurrection was His glorification. Try reading this text from an analytical point of view:

Joh 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

He was talking about His death and subsequent RESURRECTION PHYSICALLY.

Do you read books by Bishop Spong? Marcus Borg? John Dominic Crossan?
These are professors in famous universities and Spong is in charge of a big parish as well.

I don't know those names sorry. Are they liberals? If they are, i will not be surprised why you have that stand.

Why are you so defensive now?

I actually asking questions. Here read it again:

What has the humble pie got to do with our topic my friend? Are you the type of guy that involves his ego and pride when talking to someone in the internet? A certain someone whom you have not seen personally and will probably not met in your life, a certain someone whom you do not know his name? Are you like that? If not, then why ask this question?

I'm quite disappointed with your reply. After a million lines, I still do not see any historical or textual analysis in your reply.

The word of God is enough:

Joh 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

We do not need high interpretive skills in understanding that.

Ironside SG

P.S. it is somewhat confusing. you want to re-examine the Scriptures. How can you do that you cannot cross examine the witnesses:

taken from the Atheist thread. page 3. post number 24.

**************************************************************
Originally posted by Ironside:

Why do I believe that He rose from the dead?

Because of the witness and testimony of reliable and credible [b]FIRSTHAND EYEWITNESSES. they have their affidavits written in the Bible [gospels]

Courts need FIRSTHAND WITNESSES.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]your reply:

One word - si3 wu2 dui4 zeng4.

That is, the FIRSTHAND WITNESSES cannot even be cross-examined

**************************************************************

to which i replied:

but you can examine their testimonies. page 3 post number 16

then you replied:

page 3 post number 20:

In the first place, you are not even sure who made those testimonies. At least in police station you know who made the the testimony right?

And police station testimony different, 'cos that one is Q&A session in front of police officer.

Are you sure now about the witnesses? You now know who made the testimony [since you now want to re-examine it]

How will you examine it? Q and A session?

In the atheist thread you seem to not believe in the witnesses of the resurrection. But here you seem to believe in the facts of the resurrection. You even take time to re-examine them. Why waste time in re-examining something you cannot cross-examine? Have you cross-examined the witnesses already?

davidche SG

ownage Very Happy

Herzog_Zwei SG

God and Davidche got pwned...

Icemoon SG

Originally posted by Ironside:
P.S. it is somewhat confusing. you want to re-examine the Scriptures. How can you do that you cannot cross examine the witnesses:

In the atheist thread you [b]seem to not believe in the witnesses of the resurrection. But here you seem to believe in the facts of the resurrection. You even take time to re-examine them. Why waste time in re-examining something you cannot cross-examine? Have you cross-examined the witnesses already?
[/b]

It is quite shocking, at least to me, that your thinking can be so naive.

Please go and read more books on biblical history before you write your next comment.

It was you who wanted to use witnesses to prove the historicity. And when I casted doubts on the witnesses, you turned around and imposed your methodology on me - no cross-examination == no re-examination?

Icemoon SG

That's your assumption which I don't readily agree. Laughing

When you say Christians have glorified body in future, are you saying the flesh is glorified? Doesn't sound theological to me.

You ignored the problematic verse in Cor where Paul claimed to see the same Christ that appeared to Cephas and the other apostles.

There is no problem to that verse with regards to the resurrection of tbe Lord Jesus Christ. I don't know why it should be a problem.

That is where you are wrong. You failed to see the larger point behind.

This is about standards. If Paul claimed to see Christ like the few hundreds people and the apostles, and we KNOW from existing documents that Paul only saw some sort of light, then this cast strong doubts on what everyone actually saw.

In an historical analysis, what is written earlier has precedence over later works. So perhaps what everyone saw was some kind of light, some sort of spirit, a glorified body of Christ (without holes)?

Even if you disagree with this theory, the very statement from Paul has invalidated itself as evidence that Paul was supporting the gospel/acts version of the resurrection.

Joh 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

He was talking about His death and subsequent RESURRECTION PHYSICALLY.

Correction - from an analytical pov, this was what the author said of Jesus, after few decades from the actual event. (gospel of John was written last)

Do you read books by Bishop Spong? Marcus Borg? John Dominic Crossan?
These are professors in famous universities and Spong is in charge of a big parish as well.

I don't know those names sorry. Are they liberals? If they are, i will not be surprised why you have that stand.

Your excuse is akin to a Muslim saying "I dunno who is Salman Rusdie" .. which is no excuse.

I guess you can call Bishop Spong a liberal. Your ignorance simply shows that you have not been reading around.

Borg and Crossan are scholars, I don't think it is fair to label professors in well known universities as liberals. Quality of scholarship counts, not how closely they follow your established tradition.

I'm quite disappointed with your reply. After a million lines, I still do not see any historical or textual analysis in your reply.

The word of God is enough:

Joh 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

Ok .. you are hopeless.

This is all I can say. Wink

davidche SG

ownage on the other side too. Very Happy

Hey, i place a bet.....100000000forum dollars for ironside.!!!!!!!

whereismyrib SG

Errr.... actually the bible got say la....

Icemoon SG

erm .. how to know the result?

Honeybunz SG

Where Question

davidche SG

see which one gives up first, tat guy is the loser.

whereismyrib SG

I thought Romans 2:9-16 would do the job? Mr. Green

Maybe I am wrong, that is why you Question ?

« Previous Page Next Page »