TLC

10 minutes ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

To answer your question please read and learn from 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

Given that's not an answer to (and doesn't even come close to addressing) my question, evidently you've never considered the possibility that I asked... and either don't have (and can't think of) an answer, or don't comprehend the question.

20 hours ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

no eternal life for our physical bodies.

What if that were never a part of God's original design or intent? (IMO, it wasn't.)
How would (or does) that change your view of what the original sin might have been?

here's another thought for you:

that which is born of the flesh (think, in Bethlehem) is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit (think, resurrection day) is spirit.

44 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

if you’re trying to prove Jesus wasn’t considered the Son of God until after he was resurrected - you may want to consider passages in the Gospels where a voice from heaven declared he was the Son of God.

Nope. I never said (and don't think) that.
(And any effort to move it over to that comes across as little more than setting up the ole' straw man punching bag.  Seriously? After all that I've posted in various places around here - that I'm sure you've read at least once -  you really think I'd think like that?)

52 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

As far as what was the life-force in Christ’s new body or it’s origin - - I don’t know - but feel free to share what you think...anything goes here.

Well, I've actually said or alluded to it some number of times already.

Whatever it is, it is clearly and plainly marked out as being "brand new."
Never been before.
First (and only one thus far) of its kind.
"Birthed" (or begotten) of God for the very first time on "this day" of the resurrection.
It's stunning.  So "mind numbing" that most simply pass over or miss the significance of it.

1 minute ago, T-Bone said:

hmmmm....on Sonship i left off the part about in what sense ...???...- Well ok - whatever floats your boat.

 

Feel free to clarify in what sense you’re talking about...

in the sense of "This day have I begotten thee."

Do you suppose that the life in the resurrected Christ was the very same life that was in the blood (which was poured out at Calgary)?
If so, why is there no mention of there being any blood in his new body after resurrection?
If not, what happened to that life that was in the blood? And where did the life that replaced or superseded it come from?

7 hours ago, Grace Valerie Claire said:

WW, I don't know Jack about light, but I can offer a simple explanation about the Bible.  In my opinion, people usually believe what they want about the Bible; it may or may not be right.  

Probably true.  It's probably also true that people are naturally inclined towards thinking if they just try to be good, or do the best they can, that it will be "good enough" before a good and righteous judge at the end of life.  But you know, how different do you really think that is from what Cain might have thought when he brought what he had before the Lord in Genesis 4:3? 

37 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Guess I should ask what you think Acts 13:33 means...I can only assume - since you have debated other points I brought up - you might think his resurrection had something to do with his Sonship - but you can clarify or correct me if I’ve got it wrong...

Sonship, but in what sense?  (seems you left that part off...)

The language of Acts 13:33 actually appears to be quite clear in this regard, in my opinion.   It calls to mind a specific prophecy that was written in the second psalm (Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ) and  tells us the exactly event (i.e., in resurrection day) which fulfilled that very prophecy .  But, you obviously don't agree. 

42 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

V33 seems to carry the idea of an already present reality being manifested for all to see..

So, it appears that we have arrived at an impasse... as this, for me, is an irreducible belief.  For I have, for a long time now (and far too many years), seen the simplicity and beauty of it fit perfectly with all else that I know and understand of scripture... 

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

your question about how he did miraculous things kind of puzzles me ; and makes me want to ask you what difference does it really make as to HOW Jesus Christ was able to do miraculous things before or after his resurrection ...he’s Jesus Christ! Just curious - Do you have an issue with that - or why is it so hard to believe he could do all that?

I wasn't so much interested in how he did it as I was in your thoughts on how or why it was any different from what he did after his resurrection.  Which, I supposed, would help reveal what, if any, change you think did (or didn't) occur as a result of his resurrection.  For the record, I have no issue whatsoever with believing any of the miraculous things before his resurrection.  Nor do I have any issue believing what he did after his resurrection, regardless of whether they do or don't fit into that exact same category.  The only difference (for me) that it makes, is the (rather stunning, mind numbing) change that I believe happened at his resurrection.  Mind numbing... because of how it is so easily and so often subdued, skipped over, or completely missed.

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

I simply imagine the changes to his physical body after the resurrection were quite significant- going on the testimony in the Gospels and what Paul said in Corinthians about the new body. I assume you are familiar with those details, no?

Quite familiar.  And yourself... by any chance are you as familiar with this line (and its meaning), from Acts 13:33?

 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

You are correct in assuming I believe in the pre-existence of Christ - as conveyed in John 1 - in the beginning was the word & etc. as far as being a hybrid - i am simply speculating what John 1:14 means by “the only begotten” the Greek is monogenes - which can mean “one of a kind” or “the one and only”.

Well then, that's no surprise.  Like it probably doesn't surprise you that I don't... as I see his birth and life before Calgary being like (though, not exactly) that of Adam, and I relate his becoming (the only) "begotten" specifically to the day of his resurrection and his being the firstborn (and only one thus far) raised (such as he was) from the dead.  After which he most certainly is "one of a kind."  In light of that, and from this perspective, he's passed on... from what Adam may have once been, unto a new, never been before, second man (aka, "the Lord from heaven.")

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

2 hours ago, TLC said:

...(Snip)

Then what (if any) change do you think happened in (or with) his resurrection?

 

Oh yeah - I think there was quite a significant change - in ways that I can’t even imagine! ...

Then why suppose any change is "significant" if you (apparently) don't know, can't guess, or can't even imagine what changed? 

(sorry to be so blunt, but certain things you said just don't fit together or make any sense, and I'm not sure of any better way to point it out to you...)

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you probably accept (or believe in) some sort of pre-existence of Christ.  Yes?
(I'm trying to figure out how you might have arrived at this "hybrid" idea of Jesus Christ in your mind, and what that might actually mean to you ...)

26 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Oh yeah - I think there was quite a significant change - in ways that I can’t even imagine! ...please review first part of my post that got into superstring theory and our new bodies...of course - there might also be other things that changed differently for Christ just because of who he is.

So how is going through walls any different than walking on water?  I don't really see that you're making any distinction by pointing at this superstring theory you mentioned.

13 hours ago, T-Bone said:

On the spiritual vs physical you might be right; me on the other hand - a few years ago, I did some reading on superstring theories and other dimensions – so I kind of went in a different direction; if there’s anything to that stuff – it’s possible the spiritual realm is wrapped up within our physical realm…multiple dimensions folded up on each other – some theories speculate there might be at least 10 dimensions ( the basic theory suggests there’s 3D regular space + 6D hyperspace + 1 of time) that make up the fabric of reality …so maybe the spiritual realm is right here and now

Okay, seems I need to clarify something.  When I spoke of a (spiritual) reality "beyond" the reality that is common to all men, I don't think (and didn't mean) that it is on some far off ethereal place in heaven or anything apart from or removed from what is common to all.  The context of the statement concerns itself with how reality (whatever it is) is perceived.  So, it's not necessarily "a different direction" that you went in... maybe just a significantly less complicated one.  For instance, I don't see or think or speak of the world around us in 3 (or 4) dimensional terms.  Generally speaking, thoughts of it in my mind are molded into "a view"... which seems to be best stated as "a picture" of what is real.  Likewise, regardless of whether "the spiritual perspective" encompasses 6, 8 or ten (pick any number you want) dimensions, it still makes sense that they would all be molded together into "a picture" of what is real.  What I don't see, is some number of other ways to bring it all together, or to see or think of it (i.e., reality.)   

13 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I’m not sure how inspiration or revelation worked in the authors – but I don’t picture them as being perfect or impartial conduits – in some trance-like state as God took over and flipped the override switch on their cognitive abilities –

Nor am I sure. Nor do I believe it was through some "trance-like" state.  And while I don't picture the men themselves as being perfect, I can picture their initial revealing of it being exactly how God intended for it to be revealed (regardless of any other conditions or circumstances surrounding the man at the time.)

13 hours ago, T-Bone said:

What if Jesus Christ was a hybrid – being both human and divine…

Then what (if any) change do you think happened in (or with) his resurrection?

5 hours ago, chockfull said:

Plato's cave is the problem with fundamentalism and the Bible.  

It ends in a bunch of people skilled in making hand puppet forms to project shadows on the wall judging one another according to the detail and coherency of those shadows.

If so, then perhaps relativity is also a problem inherent in everything else.  Because all reality is perceptual.

Upon detection, we define energy  (in whatever form it exists) and then respond to our own definitions of it.  If it's not detectable, it isn't definable, so it's concluded that it doesn't exist.  However, at sub atomic levels, nothing is solid.  So, one can speculate that the common (or literal) reality that we experience is an illusion.  (Albeit, a very persistent one, according to Einstein.)

1 hour ago, Infoabsorption said:

Mark, you completely missed the point I was trying to make.

Apparently you missed the point of my post. 

But, no worries.  (Tends to happen more when there's an agenda involved.)
I don't care to get any deeper into it.

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Sorry I guess it wasn’t clear enough for me; as far as inerrancy goes - whether one looks at the Bible (any translation / version) as a whole or whatever existing documents that have been found - there are still obvious scientific / historical errors and contradictions . So to rephrase “my position” - I don’t believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures - even the original-God-breathed-hot-off-the-press documents...scrolls...parchments...post-it notes or whatever the heck you want to call them.

So from your perspective, there's no difference... yet, perhaps you might consider that from my perspective, there is (and has been, for over 40 years.)  Long ago (before twi) I came to the realization that whatever is spiritual:  (1) is spiritual, (2) is not physical, and (3) is a reality beyond the reality that is common to all men.  Of course, not only did that stir a certain hunger to learn more, it also established an "irreducible" premise within me.  But, if that is wrong... then I suppose I might nearly well be in that category of men "most miserable" in this life.  

That said, perhaps I'm inclined to see certain things a bit differently.   For instance, although I'm not likely to ever speak out about it, within my mind I would probably not agree with someone that said, "The bible is the word of God."  Because in my mind, the word of God is something spiritual, whereas the bible is something physical.  Therefore, I would think and say, "The bible is the revealed word of God."  However, I said "probably not," as there are times when I think I understand what they are intending to say, rather than focusing on what they actually said... and there are enough times in conversations with others where I myself more simply and casually refer to the bible as being "the Word of God." Yet, in the back of my mind, it's a distinction that is never very far away or hard to make, should the need for it ever arise.  Furthermore, the relationship between "the Word of God" (which is spiritual) and God (who is spirit) is such that if we think or see God as being perfect (i.e., inerrant), then so is His word.  What remains, then, is how any of us think that which is both (1) invisible and (2) inherently perfect, is revealed to man.  Can scripture be perceived as something spiritual? Or do you say that it can only be that which is physical?

If you think that scripture is only that which is physical, then how or what do you perceive "the Word of God" as being?  Something only breathed or "spoken"?  Either way, our perception of it traverses our minds in physical terms, as that is the only language that our minds recognize.  Somewhere, or somehow, there's a jump or transition point between the two.  And just because you or I (or anyone else) might not see or understand how that happens or is possible, doesn't mean (much less prove) that it's not possible.  Personally, I chose to believe that it is possible.  And if it's possible to happen once, then it's possible to happen as often as God determines necessary.  However, whether or not what He once determined to reveal to man was preserved perfectly is another matter altogether... and I do not believe that it was preserved perfectly.  Pretty good... ? Sure.  Maybe even, very good.  But not, "perfectly."   Nevertheless, when or where possible  (i.e., more sensible), I prefer to see it (that is, what we do have or know of it - "it" being "the word of God") as a language that is painting the picture of a much greater "spiritual reality" that is, in any other way,  invisible and unknown (and, for whatever it's worth, is that reality that actually does exist totally outside of the cave of man's senses, to which he is inextricably bound.)       

Does that mark me as a fundamentalist?  In the eyes of some, perhaps.  But I doubt that much of what I believe conforms much to that mold. 

1 hour ago, Infoabsorption said:

It was the tribes of the Land of Judea that were mourning in Matthew 24:30 not the world at large. Matthew 23:36:  Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Seems you've conveniently blended "this generation" of Matthew 23 and 24 to make it seem like they are one and the same generation.  However, they aren't.

11 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I can only speak for myself, and I mainly take issue with the claim of biblical inerrancy; and I do NOT have a disdain for the scriptures nor for the basis of its authority (God);

I'd hoped my post wouldn't be that hard to understand, but evidently it was.   It's the "fundamentalist approach" that so many (here, and elsewhere) view with blatant disdain.  Furthermore, it is scripture and not "the Bible" per se that I associated with inerrancy.  (I could elaborate, but it would detract from all else that was said.)

11 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Maybe you’ve got it wrong – I do acknowledge the incompleteness and inconsistency of my own beliefs.

I never thought (said, or otherwise implied) that you don't.  You seem to be inserting yourself into what I said about how "fundamentalism" can be (or likely is) viewed by others.  

11 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I believe there is a tendency in that approach to put God - and perhaps even the journey of faith – into a manageable format…a theology in a box…a tidy little package you could mass-market...fundamentalism being so literal, tends to ignore the cultural context and the adaptive nature of these ancient authors.

Matter of fact, some of what I said (of how fundamentalism might be thought of), appears to align quite well with your view of it.  And if you read "the problem, as I see it" part of my previous post, perhaps it didn't make any sense to you, so it went clean clear through.

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:

often what wierwille taught a passage meant ultimately became suffused with that particular text;  in the minds of his many dedicated followers, wierwille’s interpretation often eclipsed other ways of understanding the text - and I might add even obscuring other ways that were honest and technically  transparent  that perhaps don’t follow such a strict...wooden...fundamentalist approach..

I wonder at times just what is actually meant or intended with this "fundamentalist approach," or why so many find it so reproachable.  Surely the mere acceptance of the inerrancy and divine authority of scripture does not, in and of itself, merit such blatant disdain.  And if that doesn't make one a fundamentalist, then neither should a confidence in one's own theological positions.  However, perhaps the phrase embodies some kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others.  Or maybe it simply denotes some brand of "Christian" ideology incapable of acknowledging any sort of incompleteness or inconsistency in their own beliefs, or of tolerating it in anyone else.  In any event, the phrase itself carries with it such contempt, it's difficult to imagine anyone purposefully desiring to be the target of such opprobrium.  Yet, by its simple and perhaps most basic definition - an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs - I find myself aligned with it. (Albeit, my "irreducible beliefs" are probably far fewer than what you might think.) 

The problem, as I see it, is not in a disagreement that vpw's interpretation might (or often) eclipse some other way to understand the text.  Rather, it is in the possibility that the "some other way" to understand it might also be thought of and deemed as a "fundamentalist approach" which, at times, can differ radically from his (so-called) "fundamentalist approach.  Consequently, the damage that results is not only an eclipsing of what might be found apart fundamentalism, but of what might be unknown and undiscovered within it.  By this same line of reasoning, I suspect that far too many that were formerly associated with the way have turned aside from much of the truth contained in the Pauline epistles.  It probably should also be said here that vpw may have been (and in certain respects, surely was) much more of a legalist than some (or many) of you know or ever thought possible... 

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 1:54 PM, Taxidev said:

 You little analogy with the bird color is out in left field. 

Given that's where I thought you were coming from, it's somewhat surprising it didn't ring-a ling a bell or two for you. (Hey... I tried.)

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 1:54 PM, Taxidev said:

I am NOT the one supposing one can't change their belief, by that question you ask it is YOU who is supposing that.

If and when you decide to actually read (and honestly think about) exactly what I said, maybe you'll "get it."

2 hours ago, Raf said:

I think my comments, if I were to really let loose, would run the risk of being repetitive. Not to mention redundant. In other words, I've said it already.

Well, for whatever it's worth, it seems that one of the difficulties encountered on these message boards is anticipating (or in some other way, knowing) how some else reading it is going to (or NOT going to) perceive what you meant when you said it.  And surely at times, the lack of response simply indicates they just didn't "get it" (or hear it)... possibly because of when or how it was said.  So... is there some other way to say (more or less) the same thing?  Of course, no guarantee it will do any better or have any different result.  However, it has been my experience that anyone (even with limited communication skills) who genuinely understands what they are talking about, can usually find one or two other ways to present their thoughts.  (And a highly skilled teacher, some number more than that.)  Furthermore, does anyone deny that the proven value of repetition when it comes to our being able to remember what it is that somebody else thinks?  

23 hours ago, Taxidev said:

 

Seriously?  You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect?  Wow.

Apparently you're so convinced that you're right, you don't want to see or hear anything else.

_______________________________________________________________________

TLC:   There is a black crow. Why is that bird always black?
Taxidev:   You're supposing all birds are black. I disagree. 
TLC:   I restricted that color to one specific bird.  You redirected the question with a supposition and are disagreeing with your own supposition.
(The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one bird in particular, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else. )  
Taxidev:   I don't see how you see that, but, okay.  So, which supposition is that?
TLC:   [Quotes Taxidev:   supposing all birds are black.]
Taxidev:   That supposition was yours, not mine.
TLC:   No, you're wrong.  It's yours, as I never said that.
Taxidev:   [Qoutes TLC: Why is that bird always black?]] Yes, this is your own supposition.  Not mine.
Taxidev:   Seriously?  You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect?  Wow.

3 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

That was your supposition, not mine.

No, you're wrong.  It's yours, as I never said that (and have in a previous post specifically said that I've never said or thought that.)
However, I can see this discussion is repeatedly going nowhere, so I'm done with it. 

9 hours ago, WordWolf said:

If I were to place a bet on it (which I won't), I'd probably put my ducats on vpw ending up in "The Outer Darkness."  I'm not sure of a lot of details, but it sounds like that's where people like him might end up.  And if he doesn't end up there, I suspect he'd wish he DID.

Perhaps a few things written in the first chapter of Philippians should be remembered here:

[15] Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
[16] The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
[17] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
[18] What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

17 hours ago, Taxidev said:

Your question: Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?

I believe it's possible. 

Why do you believe that he was raised from the dead when it contradicts everything else that is known and experienced in the world around us?
Do you know, or is this not anything that you have ever asked yourself? 

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 12:08 AM, TLC said:

I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.

17 hours ago, Taxidev said:

I don't see how you see that, but, okay.  So, which supposition is that?

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:07 AM, Taxidev said:

supposing someone can't have a change of belief. 

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even specially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities..... Allan Bloom... from The Closing of the American Mind

If that describes the closing of the American Mind, then I suspect that the instantaneous presence of too many alternative thoughts (i.e., our anytime, instant connection to answers on the Internet) might describe the death of God in the American Mind.  Death, in the sense that no one allows God to speak to them in any way other than "through the Net."  

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

From what you’ve said to me it appears you believe the freedom to think and choose takes some enormous effort…

I didn't say that, and may not believe that... but maybe I should.  (Because I'm not convinced it comes so "naturally" to people nowadays, especially with the advent of the internet and cellphones that so many run to anytime they need to "think" about something...)