Easter

[biggandyy]

Those of us who study it have come to the same conclusion as aspen.

 

[xBluxTunicx82]

Yeah well, ignorance is bliss..

 

[JLB]

.
Sporadic Assertion: According to Php 2:6-7, when the Word of John 1:1
translated himself into a human being, he ceased to be a spirit and that's
how he became vulnerable to death.

In order for that theory to be even be taken seriously, it would first have to
be possible to terminate eternal life because the Lord came to earth not only
as a human life, but also as an eternal life; which is a kind of life that cannot
cease to exist.

†. 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, of the Word of life. For the life was manifested, and we
have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which
was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

Some Christians at large insist that eternal life isn't life at all but rather:
merely information. They derive their theory from the statement below:

†. John 17:2-3 . .You have given him authority over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as you have given him. And this is eternal life,
that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you
have sent.

They take "this is eternal life" as a definition. However; the Lord is actually
pointing out an axiom of scripture well-known to students of the second
chapter of 1Corinthians; namely that the human mind is too limited to
fathom the mind of God.

In other words: the various species of life relate to each other so well
because their minds all work the same way; viz: bat minds relate to bats,
antelope minds relate to antelopes, cow minds relate to cows, swine minds
relate to swine, and human minds relate to humans. Christ's statement
implies nothing more than that a limited mind cannot relate to an eternal
mind. Hence the need for humans to obtain eternal life before they can even
begin to relate to either the Father or His son.

Common FAQ : If the Lord revived as a spirit, as some people claim, then
what happened to the corpse?

That is a very pertinent question because if his corpse didn't revive, then it
should have still been inside the tomb on resurrection morning when the
Lord's friends looked inside. And at the very least it should have eventually
decomposed, but according to Peter, it didn't. (Acts 2:25-27)

According to Luke 24:1-5, a couple of celestial beings informed women in
the cemetery that the body they were looking for wasn't in the tomb as they
expected simply because it was alive and no longer dead.

If opponents of a physical resurrection are going to insist that the Lord's
body didn't revive, then they are going to have to produce a corpus delicti in
order to make a sensible case for themselves or be thoroughly laughed out
of court.

FYI : the Watch Tower Society, in it's little handbook "Reasoning From The
Scriptures" claims God cached the Lord's body somewhere on the earth
because it wouldn't make sense to remove the sacrifice from off the altar:
the earth being the altar (a notion they apparently got right out of thin air
and a fertile imagination). But sin offerings don't have to stay dead, they
only have to die; at least once; nor do sacrifices have to stay on the altar.
Portions of Old Testament sacrifices ended up on the Levites' plates as food
for themselves and their families; which is their God-given heritage. And still
other sacrifices were taken down off the altar and incinerated in an isolated
location.

But Christ's crucifixion wasn't a normal sacrifice nor was it even a legal
sacrifice— no; Christ is a Melchizedekian priest rather than an Aaronic priest
(Ps 110:4, Heb 5:4-6, Heb 6:18-20, Heb 7:11) so he wouldn't be subject to
the rules and regulations of the Levitical system anyway even if offerings did
have to stay on the altar.

Cliff
/

he ceased to be a spirit... The very essence of being a human is that first and foremost you are a spirit, you have a soul and you live in a temporary body! Do you somehow suppose when we die, we cease to exist.

For you to be taken serious, you would have to recant this statement!


JLB

 

[Webers_Home]

he ceased to be a spirit... The very essence of being a human is that first
and foremost you are a spirit, you have a soul and you live in a temporary
body! Do you somehow suppose when we die, we cease to exist?

No.

For you to be taken serious, you would have to recant this statement!

It's not my statement to recant.

Cliff
/

 

[Sabitarian]

First of all we are all of one blood, thus not different races as skin color is of God, but it is also from nature as the pigment that causes skin color is stronger in those who are exposed to more sun than those who are less exposed. Over many years the tribes of Africa were exposed to much more sun than those of Europe and their genes would need to make the pigment much denser to protect the person form being roasted by the sun. Not all of the disciples of Christ were of the Children of Israel as some were of different skin color and nationalities. If you are able to give blood to a person of a different skin color then there are no races. There is a difference in abilities, but that is all in the DNA of all of us, but different circumstances dictate that different genes must be utilized for different circumstances. Thus physical abilities were needed for survival in one area and mental abilities in another; it is all in the code.
Now as for spirit it is from strong’s 7307 and the meaning is listed below.
OT:7307
ruwach (roo'-akh); from OT:7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):

KJV - air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Since the breath of life came from the Father in necessity it must return to He who gave it.
Ps 146:4
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
KJV
Eccl 9:5-6
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
KJV
Again JLB you are proven by scripture to be wrong as your doctrine is from paganism by way of the Papacy. You use human reasoning and I use the Word of God. We are just earthen vessels that are given the breath of life by God and must return it to the source.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[Webers_Home]

.

You use human reasoning and I use the Word of God.

And yet you counter the word of God by quoting Ecclesiastes; which is a
book of human reasoning through and through.

Afterlife opponents often quote the book of Ecclesiastes; which is a fatal
error because proof texts related to the afterlife drawn from the book of
Ecclesiastes are inadmissible; and the reason is very simple. Ecclesiastes
isn't a book of divine revelation, but rather, a book of philosophy; and
though a holy man wrote Ecclesiastes, and was no doubt inspired to do so;
he didn't record his observations from the perspective of an enlightened man
who's privy to knowledge beyond the scope of empirical evidence; but
rather, he recorded his observations from the perspective of a man under
the sun whose perception of reality is moderated by what he can see going
on around him in the physical universe rather than what he cannot see going
on around him in the non-physical sphere: and that's why Bible students find
so much material in Ecclesiastes contrary to the doctrines of traditional
Christianity.

†. 1Cor 2:14-15 . .The natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit of
God, for they are absurd to him; nor can he plumb them, because they are
spiritually discerned.

The natural man-- a.k.a. the man under the sun --typically finds the book of
Ecclesiastes to be spot-on in agreement with his own philosophy of life; and
no mystery there since Ecclesiastes is primarily an evaluation of life on earth
as seen from the earth rather than an evaluation of life on earth as seen
from heaven.

Another thing to keep in mind when studying Ecclesiastes is that just
because people's statements are recorded in a sacred text does not make
their statements eo ipso true; for example Eve’s response to the Serpent.

†. Gen 3:1-3 . . And he said to the woman: Indeed, has God said you shall
not eat from any tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent:
From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of
the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said you shall not eat
from it or touch it, lest you die.

Was Eve telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. God forbad
them to eat the fruit, yes, but He didn’t forbid them to touch it. (cf. Gen
2:16-17)

The Serpent’s response was untrue too.

†. Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You shall not surely die.

Did Eve die? Yes.

The conversation between Eve and the Serpent was no doubt recorded by
inspiration; but there are untruths in their statements. Koheleth's worldly
philosophy of life is a lot like that; in other words: Ecclesiastes isn't
necessarily totally wrong just because it's a humanistic point of view, nor is
it necessarily totally correct just because it contains a kernel of truth. No,
the danger is that Koheleth's philosophy, like most all philosophy, contains
just enough truth to make it misleading. Caveat Lector.

†. Col 2:8 . . Beware lest anyone seduce you through philosophy

Cliff
/

 

[Sabitarian]

Cliff,
i suppose that I must take your word that God did not tell Eve that she must not touch the tree, because you were there to witness the event. Sir you are a chalitan. I listed two references for the state of the dead so where is your rebuttal of Psalm 146 as to the state of the dead? The state of the dead is dead and any referance to their having any part in this world is part of RCC paganism.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[Webers_Home]

where is your rebuttal of Psalm 146 as to the state of the dead?

†. Ps 146:3-6 . . Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in
whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in
that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for
his help, whose hope is in The Lord his God: which made heaven, and earth,
the sea, and all that therein is

It's very easy to let one's mind construe a portion of that passage to read "in
that very day his thoughts cease" when the word is "perish" rather than
cease.

Human beings are very fragile. In a moment, whatever plans, goals, and
ambitions they hold for themselves in life instantly dissolve into thin air the
very moment they die. All the cares and concerns they have when they wake
in the morning, mean nothing if they don't make it to the end of the day.

Consider all those people who met their end in the World Trade Center. None
of them woke that day planning on their deaths. No, on the contrary; they
had people to see, places to go, and things to do-- and possibly vacations
planned and hair appointments: but before the day ended; whatever they
thought to do was put on terminal hold forever.

Cliff
/

 

[Sabitarian]

Cliff,
So you agree that the dead have no part in this world. Where did you get the word cease, as it is not in the scripture that I posted. Catholic traditions say that the saints are watching us and interceeding on our behalf, do you believe this?
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Where did you get the word cease, as it is not in the scripture that I posted.

It's very easy to let one's mind construe a portion of that passage to read "in
that very day his thoughts cease" when the word is "perish" rather than
cease.

As for your other questions: they're too far afield of Easter for me to discuss
on this thread.

Cliff
/