Are we divine ???

[amadeus]

moving mountains didn't seem to be out of the question, huh

even if that is misunderstood; mountains had just recently been moved into the sea, Jerusalem sits on a man made mountain, etc

Many people, I believe, have been talked out of the best part of their faith, which was before they knew so much that men had taught them.

 

[amadeus]

"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

God put a stop to Babel then and He will do the same now for anyone heading that same direction. We should want to be stopped by God when we are doing something the wrong way as God sees it... but once we have walk so far along the road, we need to have learned to ask Him again for His help.

We don't have to know all of the reasons why, but we do have to trust Him whether we know or not. He will encourage and reassure us as we walk the right Way, even if no one around us can see it or understand it. People like to be part of the majority, but as anyone who has really been paying attention, the majority is frequently very wrong.

 

[APAK]

Again, friend and brother, I am not disagreeing. When I say the limit is on us, that does not mean going outside of or beyond God will. God has always had a plan. It is up to us as to how deeply involved we are in moving in the right side of that plan. If God's plan allows for any person to surrender completely to Him, what again is the limit of "all"? I could hardly know unless He told all of His heart and He certainly has not done that...

One one of my goals as I walk with Him is never to limit Him. Another goal it to always be available for anything He wishes me to do. No limits on either side is ideal. On His side there is no problem. On mine it is another matter, is it not?

Copy that Amadeus. I totally agree that as we walk in the spirit we are at his mercy and will. We should not expect God to ask us of us the same things all the time....we accept any 'new' work willingly. and in the spirit of love.

APAK

 

[Dcopymope]

The blood is only representational. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

If the blood is only representational and cannot inherit the kingdom, then why is his clothes dipped in blood just before his second coming with his army from heaven?

(Revelation 19:11-13) "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. {12} His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. {13} And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

John wouldn't be writing about a mans clothes being soaked in blood in heaven if this was really true. Its been claimed that Jesus Christ's resurrected body had no blood within him, all based on one little statement asserting to most people that there is no flesh and blood in heaven, yet scripture plainly states that his body saw no decay during the three days in the tomb. If his body saw no decay, then his blood didn't actually go anywhere as many assume, knowing that blood is the life thereof.

(Acts 13:30-37) "But God raised him from the dead: {31} And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. {32} And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, {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. {34} And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. {35} Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. {36} For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: {37} But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption."


(Leviticus 17:11-14) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. {12} Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. {13} And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. {14} For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."

Scripture gives no reason to believe this magically changed with Jesus Christ's atonement. Obviously, the term "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" is not literally referring to flesh and blood, but to unconverted man.

(Romans 8:7-11) "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {8} So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. {9} But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. {10} And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. {11} But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

So those that are of the "flesh" are unsaved, while the saved are of the "spirit of God". This current flesh may not be able to enter heaven, but it doesn't say anything of the kind for the incorruptible flesh like that of Jesus that we are promised to receive, of which Moses and Elijah received long beforehand as shown with the transfiguration.

(Philippians 3:20-21) "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: {21} Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."

Yes, the same body that scripture plainly states he ascended into heaven with and gives no indication to the contrary will be the same body he will return with, wearing fine linen dipped in blood. We should stop assuming that we know what heaven is, or what "spirit" is, and just admit that we really don't know jack spit about it. Lots of assumptions have been made about things we can't even observe with the most powerful microscope all based on a few sentences taken out of context.

 

[OzSpen]

Agree. It depends of what the definition for divine is:

1 Corinthians 13:3-8
[3] And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor , and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. [4] Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, [5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; [6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; [7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. [8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

ViJ,

v 4 in other translations include:

• 'Love is patient' (ESV);
• 'Love is patient' (NLT);
• 'Love is patient' (NIV).

The KJV's 'suffereth long' is an excellent translation to get at the core of what this word means.

You cited Ex 34:6 as an example of the need for long suffering. This does not apply to human beings as it refers to the Lord God who is long suffering.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Amen to that!
Many times I use the explanation of the present tense, but many do not accept it.
It gets tiring to tell you the truth.

GG,

So what are they telling you that the present tense in Greek means?

Yes it gets tiring and frustrating for me sometimes, but I have to keep at it. This led to my writing this article for my 'Truth Challenge' homepage: Growing weary of constantly correcting false teaching,

There are plenty of opportunities to do this on Christian forums on the Internet. My observation is that flaky theology is often the order of the day. I'm speaking of theology that is unconventional when compared with Scripture. I'm prepared for those who come back with, 'That's only your interpretation of Scripture. Many others disagree'.

Oz

 

[brakelite]

It became very clear that God truly deserves our suffering.

I agree with the rest of your post, just not sure what you mean by this...can you clarify?

 

[ScottA]

If the blood is only representational and cannot inherit the kingdom, then why is his clothes dipped in blood just before his second coming with his army from heaven?

John wouldn't be writing about a mans clothes being soaked in blood in heaven if this was really true. Its been claimed that Jesus Christ's resurrected body had no blood within him, all based on one little statement asserting to most people that there is no flesh and blood in heaven, yet scripture plainly states that his body saw no decay during the three days in the tomb. If his body saw no decay, then his blood didn't actually go anywhere as many assume, knowing that blood is the life thereof.

All of what is seen, whether in the flesh or in visions, is manifest, but only manifest and not the Spirit, but in the spirit. Christ explains the nature of all that is spirit, and John explains that (at that time) they did "not yet know what we shall be", but that when we see Christ, we will see Him "as His is", "for we will be like Him." But what you have described is seeing as the world sees, which they particularly say is not at all how things work in the spirit.

Scripture gives no reason to believe this magically changed with Jesus Christ's atonement. Obviously, the term "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" is not literally referring to flesh and blood, but to unconverted man.

That is an assumption. On the contrary, the word of God tells us that the body returns to the earth, and the spirit to God who gave it. In Christ's example He did not commit His flesh to the Father, but His spirit only. Therefore, the transfiguration, does not result in a glorified flesh body, but in a spirit body...which we already have if we are in Christ and He in us. But that new spiritual body is not our old man of flesh, but a [completely] new and different creation within, that at this time cannot be seen (just as John made clear).

So those that are of the "flesh" are unsaved, while the saved are of the "spirit of God". This current flesh may not be able to enter heaven, but it doesn't say anything of the kind for the incorruptible flesh like that of Jesus that we are promised to receive, of which Moses and Elijah received long beforehand as shown with the transfiguration.

No, it does not say "incorruptible [flesh]" at all, but only "incorruptible." You cannot [add] the flesh to what is written (even the word is spirit). Certainly, there is no "promise" of "incorruptible flesh."

Yes, the same body that scripture plainly states he ascended into heaven with and gives no indication to the contrary will be the same body he will return with, wearing fine linen dipped in blood. We should stop assuming that we know what heaven is, or what "spirit" is, and just admit that we really don't know jack spit about it. Lots of assumptions have been made about things we can't even observe with the most powerful microscope all based on a few sentences taken out of context.

Again, it is a grave assumption to assume that Jesus ascended into heaven in the flesh, when the scriptures do not say that.

Since John said that they did "not yet know what we shall be" after witnessing Jesus' ascension - he could not have seen Him enter in the flesh - and unlike us just now discussing or reading of it...he was there. Therefore, we have no choice but to believe the other passages that say that flesh and blood cannot and do not enter the kingdom of God. If we go against this, we go against John's witness.

 

[brakelite]

ohn wouldn't be writing about a mans clothes being soaked in blood in heaven if this was really true. Its been claimed that Jesus Christ's resurrected body had no blood within him, all based on one little statement asserting to most people that there is no flesh and blood in heaven, yet scripture plainly states that his body saw no decay during the three days in the tomb. If his body saw no decay, then his blood didn't actually go anywhere as many assume, knowing that blood is the life thereof.

If we are to take the type/antitype model we may discern in the OT that after the sacrifice of the animal was made, the priest carried the blood into the temple where it was sprinkled before the veil...all part of the redemption process, then once a year the blood of a goat upon which no sins had been confessed was carried into the Most Holy Place where this blood atoned for all the sins of Israel for the previous year...this was the cleansing of the sanctuary and of the children of Israel. The new year after the day of atonement began fresh.
As the services of the sanctuary were the type of the true, and the temple and its furniture a copy of the heavenly reality, then we my be fully justified in believing Jesus also entered the sanctuary with blood that he may minister that blood on behalf of fallen humanity. (Not that He would cut Himself afresh and sprinkle literal blood of course).
The emergence of the high priest after the day of atonement was a time of great celebration and relief for Israel. God's acceptance and the culmination of the years services was a type of the second coming. The next event for Israel was the feast of tabernacles...which we shall celebrate in heaven.

 

[brakelite]

Again, it is a grave assumption to assume that Jesus ascended into heaven in the flesh, when the scriptures do not say that.

Why would we think that the body of Jesus when He ascended into heaven be any different to the one He offered Thomas to touch and feel? Or any different from the one that ate fish with the disciples? And the one that promised to drink wine with them at the coming wedding supper? The resurrection at the coming of Christ is surely that of the body...including the blood thereof? Any of the past resurrections, such as Lazarus and Jairus's daughter, or even the body that was tossed into a hole in the ground and touched Elisha's bones...would they have been resurrected without blood?

 

[GodsGrace]

GG,

So what are they telling you that the present tense in Greek means?

Yes it gets tiring and frustrating for me sometimes, but I have to keep at it. This led to my writing this article for my 'Truth Challenge' homepage: Growing weary of constantly correcting false teaching,

There are plenty of opportunities to do this on Christian forums on the Internet. My observation is that flaky theology is often the order of the day. I'm speaking of theology that is unconventional when compared with Scripture. I'm prepared for those who come back with, 'That's only your interpretation of Scripture. Many others disagree'.

Oz

Many on these forums, with no initials after their name, seem to know the Greek language. (Koine).
The problem is with the aorist tense and using it to prove eternal security.
IOW, they believed once in the past and it carries through into the future because the aorist tense was used.

I know nothing of old, common Greek, but I know that the aorist tense is not easy to understand and we with no knowledge of Greek should leave it alone.

I read the link to your article. It explains exactly the situation nowadays in the remarks made by Jim Parker.
We have the silliest teachings , as can be seen on YouTube , and they are accepted. The latest one I know of is that salvation and discipleship are totally divided. Two different goals to achieve. When I asked the poster the lag time between the two, the reply was maybe years or maybe never!

So, iow, we could be saved and never become a disciple,,,disciple means follower!
How could one believe and not be a follower when that's what the word believe means!

I find this shocking.
2 Timothy 4:3

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, the bottom line is that "the flesh profits nothing." So, I should think that what Moses came down the mountain with was not something he had when he went up, but what was from God.

imo "the flesh profits nothing" is speaking to a perspective, and "...that it may go well with you" might be a counter-balance for that. certainly nothing done "from the flesh perspective" is profitable, which is what is meant there imo; but i think an argument can be made that works done from the Spirit are profitable to the flesh too, "that you may live long in years," etc

but in this light the joke buried in
19If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.
might be better understood imo.

 

[ScottA]

Why would we think that the body of Jesus when He ascended into heaven be any different to the one He offered Thomas to touch and feel? Or any different from the one that ate fish with the disciples? And the one that promised to drink wine with them at the coming wedding supper? The resurrection at the coming of Christ is surely that of the body...including the blood thereof? Any of the past resurrections, such as Lazarus and Jairus's daughter, or even the body that was tossed into a hole in the ground and touched Elisha's bones...would they have been resurrected without blood?

That is a good question and one that is often mistaken. But the difference is the difference between the world and the kingdom of heaven. In other words, in the world Jesus was the Word made flesh, God with us...but not the full glory of the Father, which He has now entered into, and so shall He return. Therefore, the apostle Paul declared, "Now the Lord is the Spirit."

But if what was seen of His ascension was seen, it was not the Spirit that was seen, for He himself said, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Therefore, if we "cannot tell" what they had "not yet seen" of Christ "as He is", then what was seen at the ascension...was not even the half of what did occur, but only the smallest part. So, if we go by just what was seen, we have no more information than the world has - and the world "sees Him no more."

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I agree with the rest of your post, just not sure what you mean by this...can you clarify?

Hebrews 2:10
[10] For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Romans 8:18
[18] For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Philippians 3:8-10
[8] Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, [9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: [10] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

 

[Dcopymope]

All of what is seen, whether in the flesh or in visions, is manifest, but only manifest and not the Spirit, but in the spirit. Christ explains the nature of all that is spirit, and John explains that (at that time) they did "not yet know what we shall be", but that when we see Christ, we will see Him "as His is", "for we will be like Him." But what you have described is seeing as the world sees, which they particularly say is not at all how things work in the spirit.

As I recall, the last book John wrote was revelation. It's called revelation for a reason, its because the time for allegories and parables are over with. I'm only describing the "spirit" as John saw it, not as "the world" would see it. When John describes the presence of blood in heaven, then I have no reason to conclude otherwise, or try and explain it away like most Christians do to make it seem so mystical. But no, of course you know better than John, the person who witnessed it, so I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it over his.

That is an assumption. On the contrary, the word of God tells us that the body returns to the earth, and the spirit to God who gave it. In Christ's example He did not commit His flesh to the Father, but His spirit only. Therefore, the transfiguration, does not result in a glorified flesh body, but in a spirit body...which we already have if we are in Christ and He in us. But that new spiritual body is not our old man of flesh, but a [completely] new and different creation within, that at this time cannot be seen (just as John made clear).

"the word of God tells us that the body returns to the earth, and the spirit to God who gave it"

I believe you are quoting Ecclesiastes here, which is not at all a revelation of the nature of heaven, but of the philosophy of Solomon. It makes this very clear at the very beginning of the book, that the book is all about life "under the sun". Nothing in it is meant to be taken as Christian doctrine concerning the affairs in heaven. Another scripture people love to quote as proof that the spirit returns to God by default without a body is from Paul stating that "to be absent from the body is to be present from the lord". Here is the whole stricture to get some context folks.

(2 Corinthians 5:1-8) "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. {2} For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: {3} If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. {4} For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. {5} Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. {6} Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: {7} (For we walk by faith, not by sight {8} We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

At no point does he actually state that the spirit exist without a body. What he actually says is that he does not want to be unclothed (without a body) from this current "tabernacle" which is of the earth, but further clothed (with a body) with the "building of God" that awaits us in heaven, you know, that "glorified body" he later spoke of. This is a far cry from any notions of a disembodied spirit. In context, it never supports the assumption that we will be in Gods presence without a body, nor does it ever state this to be so anywhere else. In fact, this is further illustrated when Peter spoke of the body of David below, plainly stating that he has not ascended into heaven. If David isn't in heaven, then there sure as hell isn't any reason to believe that you will either, unless you believe yourself to be that special to assume that God would specifically want you there.

(Acts 2:29-36) "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. {30} Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; {31} He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. {32} This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. {33} Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. {34} For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, {35} Until I make thy foes thy footstool. {36} Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

No, it does not say "incorruptible [flesh]" at all, but only "incorruptible." You cannot [add] the flesh to what is written (even the word is spirit). Certainly, there is no "promise" of "incorruptible flesh."
Again, it is a grave assumption to assume that Jesus ascended into heaven in the flesh, when the scriptures do not say that.

It is a far bigger assumption to claim that the same body Jesus rose from the dead with is not the same body he is presently in heaven with. To even begin to make such a claim, you have to show us where it actually states that a change of state actually occurs. In fact, don't even bother, because I have requested such a verse time and again to no avail. No change of state was required for Jesus Christ to ascend into heaven because his body was already made incorruptible. It makes it very clear that his body never saw any corruption to begin with in fact because he knew no sin, and this is what is always overlooked.

Since John said that they did "not yet know what we shall be" after witnessing Jesus' ascension - he could not have seen Him enter in the flesh - and unlike us just now discussing or reading of it...he was there. Therefore, we have no choice but to believe the other passages that say that flesh and blood cannot and do not enter the kingdom of God. If we go against this, we go against John's witness.

He knows now, its called Revelation. Its not a mystery, its been revealed. You can either believe the word of God, or just make up your own gibberish. It makes no difference to me.

 

[Dcopymope]

Why would we think that the body of Jesus when He ascended into heaven be any different to the one He offered Thomas to touch and feel? Or any different from the one that ate fish with the disciples? And the one that promised to drink wine with them at the coming wedding supper? The resurrection at the coming of Christ is surely that of the body...including the blood thereof? Any of the past resurrections, such as Lazarus and Jairus's daughter, or even the body that was tossed into a hole in the ground and touched Elisha's bones...would they have been resurrected without blood?

If one wants to take a verse here or there completely out of context, then yes, the body could be resurrected without blood. There is no legitimate reason given in scripture to believe such a thing, but I'm not taken aback by it at all. There is all shades of weirdness being spread that people believe about God, and how this place called "heaven" and the "spirits" thereof relates to the flesh. Much of the weird stuff people believe is based entirely on what is NOT stated. Jesus Christ not having blood and not going to heaven with the body he rose from the dead with is 110% an argument from silence. There is not a shred of credibility to it when properly brought under the scrutiny of the word of God.

 

[brakelite]

Therefore, the apostle Paul declared, "Now the Lord is the Spirit."

That is not the answer you would like it to be...it is not saying that Jesus is Spirit. He is still flesh and blood, albeit infinitely. God gave Him to the human race. This was not a temporary gift to be taken back when it suited HIm. The Son is forever human. We also will forever be human. Resurrected as we are without sickness or handicap, and without the signs of age.

But if what was seen of His ascension was seen, it was not the Spirit that was seen, for He himself said, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Therefore, if we "cannot tell" what they had "not yet seen" of Christ "as He is", then what was seen at the ascension...was not even the half of what did occur, but only the smallest part. So, if we go by just what was seen, we have no more information than the world has - and the world "sees Him no more."

Huh? Sorry, can't make head nor tail of that.

 

[Dcopymope]

That is not the answer you would like it to be...it is not saying that Jesus is Spirit. He is still flesh and blood, albeit infinitely. God gave Him to the human race. This was not a temporary gift to be taken back when it suited HIm. The Son is forever human. We also will forever be human. Resurrected as we are without sickness or handicap, and without the signs of age.

It seems that people are assuming that God is such a weakling that he isn't capable of freeing his creation from the curse of death unless he transforms it into a pure spirit being, something it never was to begin with and there is nothing in scripture indicating that it ever will in the future either. Again, a ton of assumptions being made based on very little to no evidence. How a "glorified body" can be defined as somehow not human or somehow "divine" is beyond me. If Jesus Christ, the word made flesh is something other than human, then Paul wouldn't have referred to him as the "second Adam" to begin with.

 

[ScottA]

As I recall, the last book John wrote was revelation. It's called revelation for a reason, its because the time for allegories and parables are over with. I'm only describing the "spirit" as John saw it, not as "the world" would see it. When John describes the presence of blood in heaven, then I have no reason to conclude otherwise, or try and explain it away like most Christians do to make it seem so mystical. But no, of course you know better than John, the person who witnessed it, so I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it over his.

Allegory works. Actually, it is parables and spirit, as is all the word of God according to God.

But, whether you believe that or not, your answer has you contradicting other scriptures that you cannot reconcile: "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", etc..

There is absolutely no room for debate here.

"the word of God tells us that the body returns to the earth, and the spirit to God who gave it"

I believe you are quoting Ecclesiastes here, which is not at all a revelation of the nature of heaven, but of the philosophy of Solomon. It makes this very clear at the very beginning of the book, that the book is all about life "under the sun". Nothing in it is meant to be taken as Christian doctrine concerning the affairs in heaven. Another scripture people love to quote as proof that the spirit returns to God by default without a body is from Paul stating that "to be absent from the body is to be present from the lord". Here is the whole stricture to get some context folks.

You are not doing so well. Now you are contradicting the apostle Paul: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

At no point does he actually state that the spirit exist without a body. What he actually says is that he does not want to be unclothed (without a body) from this current "tabernacle" which is of the earth, but further clothed (with a body) with the "building of God" that awaits us in heaven, you know, that "glorified body" he later spoke of. This is a far cry from any notions of a disembodied spirit. In context, it never supports the assumption that we will be in Gods presence without a body, nor does it ever state this to be so anywhere else. In fact, this is further illustrated when Peter spoke of the body of David below, plainly stating that he has not ascended into heaven. If David isn't in heaven, then there sure as hell isn't any reason to believe that you will either, unless you believe yourself to be that special to assume that God would specifically want you there.

Now you miss-quote: "Absent from the body", is exactly what he says.

It is a far bigger assumption to claim that the same body Jesus rose from the dead with is not the same body he is presently in heaven with. To even begin to make such a claim, you have to show us where it actually states that a change of state actually occurs. In fact, don't even bother, because I have requested such a verse time and again to no avail. No change of state was required for Jesus Christ to ascend into heaven because his body was already made incorruptible. It makes it very clear that his body never saw any corruption to begin with in fact because he knew no sin, and this is what is always overlooked.

"God is spirit." Do you then deny that Jesus is God? Because, I do not.

He knows now, its called Revelation. Its not a mystery, its been revealed. You can either believe the word of God, or just make up your own gibberish. It makes no difference to me.

What is known, I have told you, just as it is written.

And you have revealed nothing of what we shall be, but have failed to reconcile what is written, making contradictions at every point.

 

[brakelite]

"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God",

The reason flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God is because it is mortal. But not just the body...the entire person. It was't just the body of Adam that sinned, it was the whole person. Thus the whole person is subject to death. And it must be the whole person that is resurrected. However, at the resurrection on the last day the dead in Christ rise (don't come down from heaven) and those who are alive change. The mortal puts on immortality, this corruption puts on incorruption. Lazarus did not come down from heaven to reappear in his burial clothes.
If it were me, I would complain rather bitterly at having to leave heaven and come back to earth. That would not be a case for rejoicing.