Sounds like a solidly closed mind ...
Not at all like an expansive god-sol approaching eternal limits ... stretched to ethereal limits?
How to read/study: Heaven and Hell : A History of the Afterlife by Bart Ehrman
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Sounds like a solidly closed mind ...
Not at all like an expansive god-sol approaching eternal limits ... stretched to ethereal limits?
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
How would you define expansive thinking?
I would like to understand whether or not I qualify as such a thinker
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I am not sure it is that cut and dried. In my experience, both rigid and expansive thinking are more about personality than age. The expansive (by which I assume you mean open-minded) thinkers I know were that way for as long as I have known them. Ditto rigid thinkers. A rigid thinker may become rigid about a different idea (e.g. a fundamentalist religous person becoming an equally closed-minded atheist), but they are still rigid. Moving from rigid to expansive happens, but my sense is that it is more about education and exposure to ideas than age, and there is often a certain openness already there.
Redbaron
Pirate fan since the dark ages
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Whatevs. If you think that you're having 'good success' with whatever it is you're trying to do, good luck with it. I'll take my chances listening to Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Crossan, the people who have spent years in actual study, rather than slapdash twisting, of the New Testament.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Redbaron ---you can listen to whoevs you want to ----It doesn't affect me at all ----but if people here are going to post people who twist the Word of God to suit their own agenda and spew out False Doctrine ----I will certainly counter that with the Truth of Doctrine -------
You people have every right to post Ehrman and his colleges who take God's word and make a mockery of it ------AND I have every Right to post the Truth of God's word -----
There are 383 members listed on this sight and only a few same posters post on RF and as you can see for yourself on your study thread it is the same ---the others read the posts -but don't post their view --so if you only have posts that tare the Scripture apart and state untruths then that is all they read and take in ------the weeds that choke the truth of the Word as it were -------and that is not a fir stance to them who just read ---they need to have both sides presented --as far as I am concerned -----
This Parable says it best -------All people need to be aware of the weeds that choke their true harvest ------
25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed [a]weeds [resembling wheat] among the wheat, and went away.
I say -----
So keep bringing your Ehrmans and Crossans who bring the weeds that resemble the wheat -----and I will keep bring the Truth of the Scripture which is the man who sowed the good seed and had a harvest of a fine crop of wheat with no weeds ------
You people have every right to post Ehrman and his colleges who take God's word and make a mockery of it ------AND I have every Right to post the Truth of God's word -----
There are 383 members listed on this sight and only a few same posters post on RF and as you can see for yourself on your study thread it is the same ---the others read the posts -but don't post their view --so if you only have posts that tare the Scripture apart and state untruths then that is all they read and take in ------the weeds that choke the truth of the Word as it were -------and that is not a fir stance to them who just read ---they need to have both sides presented --as far as I am concerned -----
This Parable says it best -------All people need to be aware of the weeds that choke their true harvest ------
Matthew 13:24-25 (AMP)
Weeds among Wheat
24 Jesus gave them another parable [to consider], saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed [a]weeds [resembling wheat] among the wheat, and went away.
I say -----
So keep bringing your Ehrmans and Crossans who bring the weeds that resemble the wheat -----and I will keep bring the Truth of the Scripture which is the man who sowed the good seed and had a harvest of a fine crop of wheat with no weeds ------
I think you would be better off to regard Bart as a historian on biblical events. As in this book he is merely researching the origin of when the belief in heaven and hell occured.
So it might surprise you that way.
He's not preaching theology. Much like some of his other books.
Can a rigid stone actually learn something beyond what they know eternally ... or is there nothing more to it? The stone contains all that is needed in an autonomous BS ... because there is nothing beyond that confined system!
Actually little of such stuff is believed by hard cases ... it just doesn't flow for them!
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Waterfall ---you said -----
researching the origin of when the belief in heaven and hell occured.
So it might surprise you that way.
He's not preaching theology.
No --------he is not just researching the origin of when the belief in heaven and hell occured ----obviously you didn't listen well to what he is saying ------
He is preaching theology as he states that Jesus never talks about Heaven or Hell and he sates that Heaven and Hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament -----he is making False and untrue statements by saying that ----he is a false teacher ------using false Historian facts to help his case -----
Lucifer who became Satan was kicked out of heaven ----and hell was created by God for Satan and he angels who disobeyed Gad -----in the Old Testament ----and hell was inlarged as sin became rampant -so Bart historical facts are wrong -----God doesn't make mistakes ----man does ----
So if you want to believe what Mr Bart says ---then you have every right to do that ---but others might just want to know what God says about heaven and hell other that Mr Bart -----He also says Jesus never mentions either -----False ----Jesus talks more about hell then he does heaven ---why because he doesn't want people going there -----he is warning people ------every time Jesus mentions eternal life or eternal torment ---he is speaking of heaven and hell -------
People have a right to hear false claims about Scripture ----and they also have a right to hear the truth of Scripture -----there are 2 sides to be heard and considered not just one ------
For you personally you may enjoy this twisted rhetoric about the Scriptures -----I personally can listen to the twisted rhetoric about scripture --but I know the Word well enough to know that it is false rhetoric and that it comes from Satan not God -----Satan's job is to twist scripture and cause confusion to the real truth --that is what he is allowed to do ---to keep people away from the real truth ----and he is doing a good job of it with getting into the minds of these so called historians of scripture -------- like Mr Bart and the Crossans of this world ------
People have a right to believe and listen to what they want ----but fair is fair ----both views are relevant to be heard ----
So here the this from the OP ---this will show you how one side is squashed completely from speaking -----why because the truth doesn't fit into what they want to discuss -----false historian rhetoric ----truth is not allowed -----
One thing to be clear on: This is an historical/literary critical approach to the Bible and the Christian tradition as a whole. We are not discussing whether there IS (or IS NOT) a heaven and hell, but on how those ideas evolved over time in human culture.
The base assumption is that the Bible and Christian tradition are products of human culture, not handed down from heaven. Regardless of the approach taken, this will be about questioning and discussing ideas, not preaching "The Truth."
Keep truth out ---and the videos ARE discussing whether there is a heaven or hell as Bart says it is never mentioned in the Old or New Testament ------ so that is preaching false Doctrine as it is mentioned in both ----He is preaching that Jesus never mentions neither ----that is false Doctrine -----but don't allow truth to enter into the discussion -----Sad ---I wonder why many of the 383 members don't post ---they just might get this signal -----not preaching "The Truth."
Enough said
researching the origin of when the belief in heaven and hell occured.
So it might surprise you that way.
He's not preaching theology.
No --------he is not just researching the origin of when the belief in heaven and hell occured ----obviously you didn't listen well to what he is saying ------
He is preaching theology as he states that Jesus never talks about Heaven or Hell and he sates that Heaven and Hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament -----he is making False and untrue statements by saying that ----he is a false teacher ------using false Historian facts to help his case -----
Lucifer who became Satan was kicked out of heaven ----and hell was created by God for Satan and he angels who disobeyed Gad -----in the Old Testament ----and hell was inlarged as sin became rampant -so Bart historical facts are wrong -----God doesn't make mistakes ----man does ----
So if you want to believe what Mr Bart says ---then you have every right to do that ---but others might just want to know what God says about heaven and hell other that Mr Bart -----He also says Jesus never mentions either -----False ----Jesus talks more about hell then he does heaven ---why because he doesn't want people going there -----he is warning people ------every time Jesus mentions eternal life or eternal torment ---he is speaking of heaven and hell -------
People have a right to hear false claims about Scripture ----and they also have a right to hear the truth of Scripture -----there are 2 sides to be heard and considered not just one ------
For you personally you may enjoy this twisted rhetoric about the Scriptures -----I personally can listen to the twisted rhetoric about scripture --but I know the Word well enough to know that it is false rhetoric and that it comes from Satan not God -----Satan's job is to twist scripture and cause confusion to the real truth --that is what he is allowed to do ---to keep people away from the real truth ----and he is doing a good job of it with getting into the minds of these so called historians of scripture -------- like Mr Bart and the Crossans of this world ------
People have a right to believe and listen to what they want ----but fair is fair ----both views are relevant to be heard ----
So here the this from the OP ---this will show you how one side is squashed completely from speaking -----why because the truth doesn't fit into what they want to discuss -----false historian rhetoric ----truth is not allowed -----
One thing to be clear on: This is an historical/literary critical approach to the Bible and the Christian tradition as a whole. We are not discussing whether there IS (or IS NOT) a heaven and hell, but on how those ideas evolved over time in human culture.
The base assumption is that the Bible and Christian tradition are products of human culture, not handed down from heaven. Regardless of the approach taken, this will be about questioning and discussing ideas, not preaching "The Truth."
Keep truth out ---and the videos ARE discussing whether there is a heaven or hell as Bart says it is never mentioned in the Old or New Testament ------ so that is preaching false Doctrine as it is mentioned in both ----He is preaching that Jesus never mentions neither ----that is false Doctrine -----but don't allow truth to enter into the discussion -----Sad ---I wonder why many of the 383 members don't post ---they just might get this signal -----not preaching "The Truth."
Enough said
Redbaron
Pirate fan since the dark ages
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
How do YOU know what he's saying, without having to troubled yourself to read the book?
Redbaron
Pirate fan since the dark ages
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Reading a review and watching a video is not the same as actually reading the book. That would be like me saying "I heard someone say that someone else said that they heard unsafe say thus and so." Therefore I know what unsafe said from 3 removes away. Not the same as hearing it for myself at all.
Are you waiting for the Cole's Notes for the book to come out? That still doesn't count the same as reading the book itself.
Are you waiting for the Cole's Notes for the book to come out? That still doesn't count the same as reading the book itself.
Bart is saying that Jesus didn't believe in the separation of the soul and body......most Jews weren't taught that. It was the Greeks that believed that and later it infiltrated into Christian thinking. He says Jesus didn't believe that when we die our soul goes to heaven.....because a Jew doesn't believe someone can exist without a body that holds the "breath" of life. For Jews, "breath" is like what some think of as soul, but not quite the same. It is the same as the breath that was breathed into Adam.
So the resurrection will be God raising the dead including their bodies to live on earth in God's kingdom and God will also give their bodies the breath of life. There will be a judgement and God will destroy the forces of evil and those people will be annihilated and not be let into God's kingdom on earth.
When this "kingdom" didn't come soon as what they thought they were told, people started thinking that when they die, surely they'd be rewarded right away somehow, rather than stay in the grave until the end of time to be raised. So then they started thinking that when they die they would go to heaven to be with God right away......which was not taught by Jesus. This is where the soul started to come in, they(people, priests) added that the body dies but the soul goes to heaven.
The majority of Christians came from Greek circles and though they switched to Christianity they were still Greek thinkers. So what you see creeping into Christianity is Greek thinking about the soul going to heaven and this was God's reward....to have your soul live forever with God after you die.
The apostle Paul thought that the resurrection (body resurrection) had started already because of Jesus' resurrection, so he preached it was coming soon for everyone.
He expected to be alive when it happened, but when it didn't, he realized he might die before it happened. So. the "later Paul" came up with the idea that his soul would exist in a temporary realm with God in heaven until the end came.....this is where the idea of heaven and hell is first mentioned.....the good go to heaven and the bad go to hell. The Greek thinking is that your soul is immortal....good soul=heaven, bad soul = hell.
This is more Plato's teaching than Jesus', only the early Christians put their own "spin" on it.
There's more to it than that, but it makes sense to me. If you read what Jesus says about the resurrection it does seem to conflict with the later Paul.
So what do you believe that Jesus taught about the resurrection @unsafe?
Last edited:
GeoFee
I am who I am becoming...
More than enough.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Waterfall ----you said ---Bart is saying that Jesus didn't believe in the separation of the soul and body.
Jesus didn't believe that when we die our soul goes to heaven.....because a Jew doesn't believe someone can exist without a body that holds the "breath" of life.
Waterfall you say ------For Jews, "breath" is like what some think of as soul, but not quite the same. It is the same as the breath that was breathed into Adam.
I say ------Well now that doesn't make any sense -----the breath is like some think is the soul but not quite ---
First Waterfall ---Jesus is God --- he came to earth as God in the flesh ---Jesus was not of any nationality ---he was Spirit being with a Living Soul who had a physical body while He lived on this earth ------who came to buck the Jewish traditions of their man made religion of Judaism ---and to keep and fulfil the laws and festivals that His Father had put in place --not the Jews -----Jesus never once said I am a Jew so follow my Jewish ways -just like Jesus never said follow my Catholic ---Protestant --Baptise etc way ------Jesus followed What His Father said for Him to follow -----
So Mr Bart is mixed up about who Jesus is -- I say
Waterfall ----Jesus did believe that when we die our soul and spirit both go to heaven in a glorified body -------and Jesus did that --he was resurrected He had a Glorified Spiritual body was a living soul and walked the earth for 40 days --in a body that required no blood to keep it alive ------he ate ---he talked ---he lived ----and he went through a closed door to speak to his disciples before he was caught up to heaven ------
Mr Bart is treating Jesus like He is man-- a Jew that wouldn't believe that the soul leaves the body ---it is ridiculous what he is saying ---- the man is peddling what he believes not what God told us to believe ------
Most Jews still don't believe their Messiah has come yet ----so what the Jews believe is false -----
Luke 16 ----Abraham and Lazarus ----tells us the soul and spirit leave the physical body and both go to one pace or the other ----both men are alive --both have a mind will and emotions ---both can talk -----one is in torment and the other in paradise -----
_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is from ----read all for yourselves ---the body mentioned here is the Glorified body that we get to live in heaven ----the same body Jesus had upon His resurrection
does-our-soul-go-when-we-die.html
Jesus spoke of the inestimable value of the human soul (and simultaneously taught that soul and body will be reunited for either eternal life with or, in that case, without God):
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28 NIV).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waterfall --you said ---There's more to it than that, but it makes sense to me. If you read what Jesus says about the resurrection it does seem to conflict with the later Paul.
Well you can think that ----all contradictions in scripture can be reconciled ---God does not make mistakes nor is He the author of confusion --Satan is ----
read all for yourselves ----I am just posting this -----
answersingenesis.org
Christ’s Resurrection led to a confusing day, as His followers raced around the city. Skeptics point to alleged contradictions to prove Scripture wrong. Can the four Gospels be reconciled?
Actual contradictions in the Resurrection reports would raise serious concerns for Christianity. If these discrepancies are legitimate, they would be a strike against the preservation of Scripture, but errors would not prove anything against the truth of the Lord’s Resurrection or the infallible original records. Nevertheless, Christians need not worry. These accounts can be reconciled. Indeed, when we put all the pieces together, the wonder of the Resurrection shines out in even greater glory.
Jesus didn't believe that when we die our soul goes to heaven.....because a Jew doesn't believe someone can exist without a body that holds the "breath" of life.
Waterfall you say ------For Jews, "breath" is like what some think of as soul, but not quite the same. It is the same as the breath that was breathed into Adam.
I say ------Well now that doesn't make any sense -----the breath is like some think is the soul but not quite ---
First Waterfall ---Jesus is God --- he came to earth as God in the flesh ---Jesus was not of any nationality ---he was Spirit being with a Living Soul who had a physical body while He lived on this earth ------who came to buck the Jewish traditions of their man made religion of Judaism ---and to keep and fulfil the laws and festivals that His Father had put in place --not the Jews -----Jesus never once said I am a Jew so follow my Jewish ways -just like Jesus never said follow my Catholic ---Protestant --Baptise etc way ------Jesus followed What His Father said for Him to follow -----
So Mr Bart is mixed up about who Jesus is -- I say
Waterfall ----Jesus did believe that when we die our soul and spirit both go to heaven in a glorified body -------and Jesus did that --he was resurrected He had a Glorified Spiritual body was a living soul and walked the earth for 40 days --in a body that required no blood to keep it alive ------he ate ---he talked ---he lived ----and he went through a closed door to speak to his disciples before he was caught up to heaven ------
Mr Bart is treating Jesus like He is man-- a Jew that wouldn't believe that the soul leaves the body ---it is ridiculous what he is saying ---- the man is peddling what he believes not what God told us to believe ------
Most Jews still don't believe their Messiah has come yet ----so what the Jews believe is false -----
Luke 16 ----Abraham and Lazarus ----tells us the soul and spirit leave the physical body and both go to one pace or the other ----both men are alive --both have a mind will and emotions ---both can talk -----one is in torment and the other in paradise -----
_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is from ----read all for yourselves ---the body mentioned here is the Glorified body that we get to live in heaven ----the same body Jesus had upon His resurrection
Jesus spoke of the inestimable value of the human soul (and simultaneously taught that soul and body will be reunited for either eternal life with or, in that case, without God):
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28 NIV).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waterfall --you said ---There's more to it than that, but it makes sense to me. If you read what Jesus says about the resurrection it does seem to conflict with the later Paul.
Well you can think that ----all contradictions in scripture can be reconciled ---God does not make mistakes nor is He the author of confusion --Satan is ----
read all for yourselves ----I am just posting this -----
Christ’s Resurrection—Four Accounts, One Reality
Christ’s Resurrection—Four Accounts, One Reality
Christ’s Resurrection led to a confusing day, as His followers raced around the city. Skeptics point to alleged contradictions in the Gospels.
answersingenesis.org
Christ’s Resurrection led to a confusing day, as His followers raced around the city. Skeptics point to alleged contradictions to prove Scripture wrong. Can the four Gospels be reconciled?
Actual contradictions in the Resurrection reports would raise serious concerns for Christianity. If these discrepancies are legitimate, they would be a strike against the preservation of Scripture, but errors would not prove anything against the truth of the Lord’s Resurrection or the infallible original records. Nevertheless, Christians need not worry. These accounts can be reconciled. Indeed, when we put all the pieces together, the wonder of the Resurrection shines out in even greater glory.
Conclusion
Luke declared that after Jesus suffered and died on the Cross, He showed Himself alive “by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). Skeptics will surely continue to question Scripture and neglect reasonable solutions to the dilemmas they propose. It’s hard for them to be open-minded about sensible answers because Christ’s Resurrection, if true, is a miracle that demonstrates Jesus is Lord—a truth contrary to their secular worldview, which rejects miracles and the supernatural. No matter how many objections unbelievers raise, Christians can be confident there are no contradictions in the Word of God.
Redbaron
Pirate fan since the dark ages
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
It isn't Dr. Ehrman who is confused. No matter what you say, or how many times or how loud you say it.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
So, this, perhaps, is where the literal/metaphorical part ways and can't be reconciled.
Jesus was, historically, a Jew. The ONLY scripture that he could possibly ever refer to is the Hebrew scripture. We also know the "tradition" around that scripture - 2 Jews, 3 opinions. Thanks to the wonderful resource that is the Talmud, we have a fairly clear idea of the range of ideas floating around during his historical time period.
So placing him in history, with context, then repeatedly asking "so what" about his theological statements, conjecturing that the stories ABOUT Jesus were ALSO parables, are all legit ways to confront scripture as myth/metaphor.
With literalism, you're stuck with the original text, you don't know Koine Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew, so you flail around in the dark trying to make everything line up factually. There's no nuance. 2 plus 2 equals 4. Which is a bizarre way to approach the sacred text of any religion.
Jesus was, historically, a Jew. The ONLY scripture that he could possibly ever refer to is the Hebrew scripture. We also know the "tradition" around that scripture - 2 Jews, 3 opinions. Thanks to the wonderful resource that is the Talmud, we have a fairly clear idea of the range of ideas floating around during his historical time period.
So placing him in history, with context, then repeatedly asking "so what" about his theological statements, conjecturing that the stories ABOUT Jesus were ALSO parables, are all legit ways to confront scripture as myth/metaphor.
With literalism, you're stuck with the original text, you don't know Koine Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew, so you flail around in the dark trying to make everything line up factually. There's no nuance. 2 plus 2 equals 4. Which is a bizarre way to approach the sacred text of any religion.
Did Jesus resurrect without his body IYO?Waterfall ----you said ---Bart is saying that Jesus didn't believe in the separation of the soul and body.
Jesus didn't believe that when we die our soul goes to heaven.....because a Jew doesn't believe someone can exist without a body that holds the "breath" of life.
Waterfall you say ------For Jews, "breath" is like what some think of as soul, but not quite the same. It is the same as the breath that was breathed into Adam.
I say ------Well now that doesn't make any sense -----the breath is like some think is the soul but not quite ---
First Waterfall ---Jesus is God --- he came to earth as God in the flesh ---Jesus was not of any nationality ---he was Spirit being with a Living Soul who had a physical body while He lived on this earth ------who came to buck the Jewish traditions of their man made religion of Judaism ---and to keep and fulfil the laws and festivals that His Father had put in place --not the Jews -----Jesus never once said I am a Jew so follow my Jewish ways -just like Jesus never said follow my Catholic ---Protestant --Baptise etc way ------Jesus followed What His Father said for Him to follow -----
So Mr Bart is mixed up about who Jesus is -- I say
Waterfall ----Jesus did believe that when we die our soul and spirit both go to heaven in a glorified body -------and Jesus did that --he was resurrected He had a Glorified Spiritual body was a living soul and walked the earth for 40 days --in a body that required no blood to keep it alive ------he ate ---he talked ---he lived ----and he went through a closed door to speak to his disciples before he was caught up to heaven ------
Mr Bart is treating Jesus like He is man-- a Jew that wouldn't believe that the soul leaves the body ---it is ridiculous what he is saying ---- the man is peddling what he believes not what God told us to believe ------
Most Jews still don't believe their Messiah has come yet ----so what the Jews believe is false -----
Luke 16 ----Abraham and Lazarus ----tells us the soul and spirit leave the physical body and both go to one pace or the other ----both men are alive --both have a mind will and emotions ---both can talk -----one is in torment and the other in paradise -----
_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is from ----read all for yourselves ---the body mentioned here is the Glorified body that we get to live in heaven ----the same body Jesus had upon His resurrection
does-our-soul-go-when-we-die.html
Jesus spoke of the inestimable value of the human soul (and simultaneously taught that soul and body will be reunited for either eternal life with or, in that case, without God):
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28 NIV).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waterfall --you said ---There's more to it than that, but it makes sense to me. If you read what Jesus says about the resurrection it does seem to conflict with the later Paul.
Well you can think that ----all contradictions in scripture can be reconciled ---God does not make mistakes nor is He the author of confusion --Satan is ----
read all for yourselves ----I am just posting this -----
Christ’s Resurrection—Four Accounts, One Reality
Christ’s Resurrection—Four Accounts, One Reality
Christ’s Resurrection led to a confusing day, as His followers raced around the city. Skeptics point to alleged contradictions in the Gospels.
Christ’s Resurrection led to a confusing day, as His followers raced around the city. Skeptics point to alleged contradictions to prove Scripture wrong. Can the four Gospels be reconciled?
Actual contradictions in the Resurrection reports would raise serious concerns for Christianity. If these discrepancies are legitimate, they would be a strike against the preservation of Scripture, but errors would not prove anything against the truth of the Lord’s Resurrection or the infallible original records. Nevertheless, Christians need not worry. These accounts can be reconciled. Indeed, when we put all the pieces together, the wonder of the Resurrection shines out in even greater glory.
Conclusion
Luke declared that after Jesus suffered and died on the Cross, He showed Himself alive “by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). Skeptics will surely continue to question Scripture and neglect reasonable solutions to the dilemmas they propose. It’s hard for them to be open-minded about sensible answers because Christ’s Resurrection, if true, is a miracle that demonstrates Jesus is Lord—a truth contrary to their secular worldview, which rejects miracles and the supernatural. No matter how many objections unbelievers raise, Christians can be confident there are no contradictions in the Word of God.
Pavlos Maros
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I have no interest in reading fiction. I did enough of that late into my twenties. I will and can refer back to those fiction stories in debates but however they still are only fiction. When discussing anything without any position in reality, you can only ever garner an opinion, and an opinion in that instant is effectively worthless. Whatever we discuss/debate must have a basis in reality for it to have any meaning.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Waterfall ---the Scripture answers your Question -----of the body on resurrection
21 who, by exerting that power which enables Him even to subject everything to Himself, will [not only] transform [but completely refashion] our earthly bodies so that they will be like His glorious resurrected body
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from Bart's blog -----about the resurrection ----This Response that Mr Bart gives here will show you he has no idea what he is talking about ---he goes around the Mountain ---trying to poorly answer the question ask -----and don't forget Mr bart is talking about the resurrection of the flesh here -----The Flesh is not resurrected -----the Body is changed from Physical to Spiritual --------read here
ehrmanblog.org
QUESTIONS:
But what is a BODILY resurrection without the flesh? And doesn’t this indicate that the flesh (the corpse) didn’t matter anymore and could be left behind, rotting and decomposing? Isn’t it all about the spirit finally getting this new, better, perfect, divine ‘body’?
Addendum: The Greek for ‘spiritual’ (like in spiritual body) is pneumatikos, right? According to Strong’s that means: pertaining to wind or breath, windy, exposed to the wind, blowing. Now those wouldn’t be obvious words to describe something physical or made out of matter, would it? They seems to rather define something ‘intangible’
RESPONSE:
OK, I’ve been getting a lot of questions along these lines (some on the blog itself). So I need to try to clarify the whole matter. It’s not easy, for a variety of reasons. But I’ll do my best.
First thing to stress: the ancient apocalyptic view of the human that Paul had is not the view of the human that WE have. This is one instance where it becomes crystal clear that we have to try to think in a way that we are decidedly not accustomed to if we want to understand Paul. For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things. That’s because, for him, “flesh” does not refer to what WE refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body. It is not our flesh. “Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God. The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law. Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God. The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if we put in bold what he says here --it really makes no sense and he doesn't answer the Question at all -----he just uses a lot of word but gives no explanation of what Paul means here -and what a horror description of the flesh ----meat that is hanging on our bones ------
This is Mr Bart's quote --------
For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things. That’s because, for him, “flesh” does not refer to what WE refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body.
then he says -----
“Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God. The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law. Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God. The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8)
So lets look at this he says -----
“Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God.
I say ---Well he says ----the flesh is the bad side of being humans ------the flesh here referrers to the Sin Nature we are born with -----but we also have a human Spirit and a corrupt soul -----all of which keep us alienated from God ------all have to be changed to be in right standing with God -----which he does not mention -----
He says -----The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law.
I say ---------So the flesh can't please God because ??---which he does not give any answer to -----this answer is because all we do should be God driven by and through faith in Him not self driven -------as seen below -----
Strongs ----4561 (sarks) is generally negative, referring to making decisions (actions) according to self – i.e. done apart from faith -----
Thus what is "of the flesh (carnal)" is by definition displeasing to the Lord – even things that seem "respectable!"
In short, flesh generally relates to unaided human effort, i.e. decisions (actions) that originate from self or are empowered by self.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he says -------the flesh keeps us from keeping the law ------Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God.
I say -----This is a contradiction to what he says above ------as now he says sin is using the flesh to force us to do things in opposition to God ----where before he says the flesh is bad -His quote here ---------It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin ---
So the Flesh as in the sin nature is NOT what keeps us from keeping the Laws ---
-cause We have a nature to sin ---the flesh cannot force us to sin ---we make the decision to sin all by ourselves -----and God gave the blessings and cursing for obedience and disobedience for Choosing to keep the laws or not ------ choose life or death God says -----so this shows we have a choice
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He says -----The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8)
This is the scripture he quotes here ------
I say ---well folks here is where he goes off track -----because Romans 6:8 ---is referring to laying down the Sin Nature --it is not referring to the resurrected body that we will have when we ascend into heaven or hell ------which is what this question and answer was referring to ---
the title was -----Paul and the Resurrection of the “Flesh”?
So again he is floundering around here saying ------The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed.
This physical body will die and be no more ----this physical body cannot be redeemed -------our Spirit and Soul needs to be made New in Christ -----
Our Physical body is made from the dust of the ground and the ground is still Cursed in this world and will be until the new earth comes into place ------no physical body will ever get into heaven or hell -----we will have different spiritual body -------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippians 3:20-21 (AMP)
20 But [we are different, because] our citizenship is in heaven. And from there we eagerly await [the coming of] the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;21 who, by exerting that power which enables Him even to subject everything to Himself, will [not only] transform [but completely refashion] our earthly bodies so that they will be like His glorious resurrected body
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from Bart's blog -----about the resurrection ----This Response that Mr Bart gives here will show you he has no idea what he is talking about ---he goes around the Mountain ---trying to poorly answer the question ask -----and don't forget Mr bart is talking about the resurrection of the flesh here -----The Flesh is not resurrected -----the Body is changed from Physical to Spiritual --------read here
Paul and the Resurrection of the "Flesh"? | The Bart Ehrman Blog
QUESTIONS: But what is a BODILY resurrection without the flesh? And doesn’t this indicate that the flesh (the corpse) didn’t matter anymore and could be left behind, rotting and decomposing? Isn’t it all about the spirit finally getting this new, better, perfect, divine ‘body’? Addendum: The...
ehrmanblog.org
Paul and the Resurrection of the “Flesh”?
October 9, 2012QUESTIONS:
But what is a BODILY resurrection without the flesh? And doesn’t this indicate that the flesh (the corpse) didn’t matter anymore and could be left behind, rotting and decomposing? Isn’t it all about the spirit finally getting this new, better, perfect, divine ‘body’?
Addendum: The Greek for ‘spiritual’ (like in spiritual body) is pneumatikos, right? According to Strong’s that means: pertaining to wind or breath, windy, exposed to the wind, blowing. Now those wouldn’t be obvious words to describe something physical or made out of matter, would it? They seems to rather define something ‘intangible’
RESPONSE:
OK, I’ve been getting a lot of questions along these lines (some on the blog itself). So I need to try to clarify the whole matter. It’s not easy, for a variety of reasons. But I’ll do my best.
First thing to stress: the ancient apocalyptic view of the human that Paul had is not the view of the human that WE have. This is one instance where it becomes crystal clear that we have to try to think in a way that we are decidedly not accustomed to if we want to understand Paul. For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things. That’s because, for him, “flesh” does not refer to what WE refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body. It is not our flesh. “Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God. The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law. Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God. The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if we put in bold what he says here --it really makes no sense and he doesn't answer the Question at all -----he just uses a lot of word but gives no explanation of what Paul means here -and what a horror description of the flesh ----meat that is hanging on our bones ------
This is Mr Bart's quote --------
For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things. That’s because, for him, “flesh” does not refer to what WE refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body.
then he says -----
“Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God. The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law. Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God. The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8)
So lets look at this he says -----
“Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human. It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin and is alienated from God.
I say ---Well he says ----the flesh is the bad side of being humans ------the flesh here referrers to the Sin Nature we are born with -----but we also have a human Spirit and a corrupt soul -----all of which keep us alienated from God ------all have to be changed to be in right standing with God -----which he does not mention -----
He says -----The flesh is the reason we cannot please God even by keeping the Law.
I say ---------So the flesh can't please God because ??---which he does not give any answer to -----this answer is because all we do should be God driven by and through faith in Him not self driven -------as seen below -----
Strongs ----4561 (sarks) is generally negative, referring to making decisions (actions) according to self – i.e. done apart from faith -----
Thus what is "of the flesh (carnal)" is by definition displeasing to the Lord – even things that seem "respectable!"
In short, flesh generally relates to unaided human effort, i.e. decisions (actions) that originate from self or are empowered by self.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he says -------the flesh keeps us from keeping the law ------Because sin, using the flesh, forces us to do things in opposition to God.
I say -----This is a contradiction to what he says above ------as now he says sin is using the flesh to force us to do things in opposition to God ----where before he says the flesh is bad -His quote here ---------It is that part of the human that has been corrupted by sin ---
So the Flesh as in the sin nature is NOT what keeps us from keeping the Laws ---
-cause We have a nature to sin ---the flesh cannot force us to sin ---we make the decision to sin all by ourselves -----and God gave the blessings and cursing for obedience and disobedience for Choosing to keep the laws or not ------ choose life or death God says -----so this shows we have a choice
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He says -----The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed. The body has to be redeemed, not destroyed. (See how Paul talks about “flesh” in Romans 6-8)
This is the scripture he quotes here ------
Romans 6:8 (AMP)
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live [together] with Him,I say ---well folks here is where he goes off track -----because Romans 6:8 ---is referring to laying down the Sin Nature --it is not referring to the resurrected body that we will have when we ascend into heaven or hell ------which is what this question and answer was referring to ---
the title was -----Paul and the Resurrection of the “Flesh”?
So again he is floundering around here saying ------The flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does *not* mean that the body has to be destroyed.
This physical body will die and be no more ----this physical body cannot be redeemed -------our Spirit and Soul needs to be made New in Christ -----
Our Physical body is made from the dust of the ground and the ground is still Cursed in this world and will be until the new earth comes into place ------no physical body will ever get into heaven or hell -----we will have different spiritual body -------
1 Corinthians 15:52 (AMP)
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at [the sound of] the last trumpet call. For a trumpet will sound, and the dead [who believed in Christ] will be raised imperishable, and we will be [completely] changed [wondrously transformed].-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------