Many saints conflate birth with resurrection

[ewq1938]

That is your response to my point, to disregard it by defining what a "straw man argument" is? I guess you have no answer?

No, I answered and corrected the same exact error you made but you just repeated it again so no reason to correct it again.

You said, ""When the saved are resurrected, they cannot die anymore."

Referring to the first resurrection which I made clear in the post.

I quoted what you said, and proved it wrong.

You proved the strawman fallacy you created was wrong.

You said, in effect, that Christians can only die once.

I never said that.

But obviously, a resurrected Christian who comes back in his mortal body proves this wrong.

And that is a strawman because neither I nor anyone else believes a Christian cannot die twice.

And no--this is not a straw man argument. You're arguing that no Christians have died and have been raised from the dead in history.

I never said that. You have invented that yourself.

And you base this on your preconceived doctrine? Yes, your claim is very weak, particularly when Jesus showed that believers like Lazarus could be raised from the dead. How can you prove that the Saved have never been raised back up in their old bodies in history?

I have never said nor believed in such a thing. You have created this. That's what a strawman is.

I quoted you exactly. If that's not what you meant, or if I misunderstood the context, explain that.

I already did and it had no affect on what you thought I was saying.

But don't call it a "straw ma argument," because it's not. It directly challenges your claim, that Christians only die once.

Not a claim I have ever made.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, I answered and corrected the same exact error you made but you just repeated it again so no reason to correct it again.

False, I quoted you exactly. Here is the context from post #31:

"Luk_20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

When the saved are resurrected, they cannot die anymore."

This is not a "similar error," and there is no "straw man argument." You said what you said, and now you're trying to deny it apparently? But there it is for everyone to read.

In that passage in Luke 20, Jesus is speaking of the next age, which is not the age we were talking about. We were talking about the present age when Jesus died and rose on the 3rd day. That was *not* the age Jesus was speaking of when he said there will be "children of the resurrection." He was clearly speaking of the new age...

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.

So you have clearly taken your "proof," that Jesus had to be raised immortal, from the wrong passage, because it *does not apply!*

Referring to the first resurrection which I made clear in the post.

Reference to the 1st Resurrection was not the issue. I said I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead in his mortal body. You deny that based on Luke 20, which *does not apply.*

Some people see Jesus' resurrection as the "1st Resurrection." Others see the "1st Resurrection" as the resurrection of Christians from the present age who are given immortality at the 2nd Coming. Regardless, your "proof text" from Luke 20 is Jesus' reference to the next age, which has nothing to do with Jesus' resurrection, which was in the present age.

I don't really care what you want to believe. But this stuff about "strawman arguments" is not applicable. If you don't want to argue the points or deal with them, fine. Just don't pretend I haven't made an argument. This point is not critical for me.