Fully predestinated, called, and justified???

[steve7150]

[[color=#FF4040]color=#FF4040]And according to your understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:50, "flesh and blood" can NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven...yet you believe Christ was "flesh and blood" after His resurrectionAnd according to your understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:50, "flesh and blood" can not inherit vthe kindom of heaven."







What Jesus said as you know and what i quoted as you know was "flesh and bone."

[steve7150]

[/verseblock]






God owns all the cattle on all the hills which is an awful lot of cattle, not 40 cattle on 40 hills or 40 years.

[steve7150]

As for your definition of 1,000, I suppose God does NOT own the cattle on hill # 1001. It indicates fullness and is not related to a specific amount of time, either lengthy or a short while. But I suppose you will reject that based upon some scholar's ideas...







As i was saying God owns all the cattle on all the hills, not 40 cattle on 40 hills or 40 years. If a person did'nt first have this system of everything happened in 70AD system which reconciles to nothing, never would he conclude "milleneum" to mean a 40 year period.
It takes a milleneum to create that definition.

[Mellontes]

This was the normal Hebraic understanding of the death. The ministration of death (the law, old covenant) were not statutes dealing with physical death, were they? They were dealing with being out of covenant with God. These (along with the nation of Israel's practice of them) would represent the shadows and types eventually fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ, the new covenant. I am fairly certain you would agree with that.

I'll get back to you on this sometime soon. I'm not sure I entirely agree.

First of all, it was the phrase "ministration of death" that made me think the discussion had shifted to the Corinthian church.

Next, what do you mean by the death. Your use of underlining seems to indicate this is specialized terminology. Is it, or was it just emphasis on your part? Do you have scripture that would point to this?

I would agree with your statement that Jesus fulfilled the Law. I agree with the statement that the Law was a ministry that brought death. I don't think I agree with your rhetorical question, "...were not statutes dealing with physical death, were they?" I think they were.

Also, I'd love to know what your answer is to TK, who asked what you have against a bodily resurrection in this post.

And, do you believe there was a point in time when a resurrection occurred? 70 AD?

Finally, a few times now you said that Jesus was not resurrected in his physical body. The tomb was empty. What happened to his body?

Sorry Michelle, you are just going to have to wait for most of your answers...While you are waiting, why don't you take a shot a answering why there are all those present passive verbs in 1 Corinthians 15 as I indicated a couple of posts ago. I am too tired to go hunting for the exact post...

[Michelle]

Sorry Michelle, you are just going to have to wait for most of your answers...While you are waiting, why don't you take a shot a answering why there are all those present passive verbs in 1 Corinthians 15 as I indicated a couple of posts ago. I am too tired to go hunting for the exact post...

Thanks, Melontes, I don't mind waiting. As for those present passive verbs in 1 Corinthians 15, I don't know. It just seems like a stylistic choice to me. I don't know greek, so I don't know if speaking in the present tense when using a metaphor is meaningful in some special way. Perhaps you are more educated in greek than I am and can explain this significance to me?

[Mellontes]

Sorry Michelle, you are just going to have to wait for most of your answers...While you are waiting, why don't you take a shot a answering why there are all those present passive verbs in 1 Corinthians 15 as I indicated a couple of posts ago. I am too tired to go hunting for the exact post...

Thanks, Melontes, I don't mind waiting. As for those present passive verbs in 1 Corinthians 15, I don't know. It just seems like a stylistic choice to me. I don't know greek, so I don't know if speaking in the present tense when using a metaphor is meaningful in some special way. Perhaps you are more educated in greek than I am and can explain this significance to me?

Perhaps you could show me the "metaphors" you speak of in these present passive uses from 1 Corinthians 15?

1 Corinthians 15:2 …Ye are BEING saved…
1 Corinthians 15:12… Now if Christ is BEING preached…
1 Corinthians 15:15… we are BEING found...are not BEING raised…
1 Corinthians 15:16… are not BEING raised
1 Corinthians 15:26… the last enemy BEING destroyed!!!!!
1 Corinthians 15:32… If the dead ones are not BEING raised
1 Corinthians 15:35… how are the dead BEING raised, with what body are they coming?
1 Corinthians 15:42-44… The body is BEING sown...it is BEING raised...it is BEING sown...it is BEING raised...it is BEING sown...it is BEING raised...it is BEING sown...it is BEING raised

That is the correct translation of the present passive. But when one comes to Scripture with presuppositions, things change...

[Michelle]

Paul is using a metaphor when he speaks of the body in terms of a seed which is buried in the ground only to sprout up later in a new form. You take the language even more metaphorically because you see even the body as a metaphor for the soul (or spirit) since the burial of a dead body is the end of it, with no future hope of a resurrection.

I see in the other thread that you've had it with us and these conversations, so I guess this is it. Thanks for the time you've spent to explain your position.

[Mellontes]

Paul is using a metaphor when he speaks of the body in terms of a seed which is buried in the ground only to sprout up later in a new form. You take the language even more metaphorically because you see even the body as a metaphor for the soul (or spirit) since the burial of a dead body is the end of it, with no future hope of a resurrection.

I see in the other thread that you've had it with us and these conversations, so I guess this is it. Thanks for the time you've spent to explain your position.

This is why it is not a good use of my time being here. I am misrepresented and or misunderstood most of the time.

You said, "You take the language even more metaphorically because you see even the body as a metaphor for the soul (or spirit) since the burial of a dead body is the end of it, with no future hope of a resurrection."

And that isn't even close...you folks are so fixated upon a physical resurrection because you believe the curse was physical in nature. The curse was separation from God and was demonstrated by being PHYSICALLY booted out of the garden because of sin. I have mentioned this several times before to no avail. If Jesus Christ TRULY removes the penalty for our sin, then please tell me why He failed because we all still die PHYSICALLY.

Our resurrection is truly from death. It is a resurrection from death unto Life. We pass from death unto Life.

John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

But if one is totally predisposed into believing a physical resurrection from the cemetery, then that previous Scripture will be foreign. I just don't see how you could possibly think that if the resurrection is physical and from the graves, then how could anyone's faith be overthrown by an individual who would say that the resurrection was past, as did Hymanaeus and Philetus. Some are even so unexegetically sound to apply those pre-parousia words to us who live in a post-parousia state...

Now, you can stick a fork in me...

[Michelle]

Paul is using a metaphor when he speaks of the body in terms of a seed which is buried in the ground only to sprout up later in a new form. You take the language even more metaphorically because you see even the body as a metaphor for the soul (or spirit) since the burial of a dead body is the end of it, with no future hope of a resurrection.

I see in the other thread that you've had it with us and these conversations, so I guess this is it. Thanks for the time you've spent to explain your position.

This is why it is not a good use of my time being here. I am misrepresented and or misunderstood most of the time.

You said, "You take the language even more metaphorically because you see even the body as a metaphor for the soul (or spirit) since the burial of a dead body is the end of it, with no future hope of a resurrection."

And that isn't even close...you folks are so fixated upon a physical resurrection because you believe the curse was physical in nature. The curse was separation from God and was demonstrated by being PHYSICALLY booted out of the garden because of sin. I have mentioned this several times before to no avail. If Jesus Christ TRULY removes the penalty for our sin, then please tell me why He failed because we all still die PHYSICALLY.

Our resurrection is truly from death. It is a resurrection from death unto Life. We pass from death unto Life.

John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

But if one is totally predisposed into believing a physical resurrection from the cemetery, then that previous Scripture will be foreign. I just don't see how you could possibly think that if the resurrection is physical and from the graves, then how could anyone's faith be overthrown by an individual who would say that the resurrection was past, as did Hymanaeus and Philetus. Some are even so unexegetically sound to apply those pre-parousia words to us who live in a post-parousia state...

Now, you can stick a fork in me...

Mellontes,

I'm sorry you believe that I'm misrepresenting and or misunderstanding you most of the time. I really don't see where my statement is off. If you're still around, could you show me?

My statement: "You take the language even more metaphorically because you see even the body as a metaphor for the soul (or spirit) since the burial of a dead body is the end of it, with no future hope of a resurrection."

Did I misrepresent you because I said,"... you see even the body as a metaphor for the soul?" I said this because you emphasize that we move from death into life, but the death we move from is spiritual death and the life we move into is eternal life; it has nothing to do with physical death, which we all will taste, or physical, bodily resurrection. So, when Paul talks about a body being sown and that body being raised you don't take that literally - right?

Am I not even close when I said "...since the burial of the dead body is the end of it...?" Do you really believe something else? Maybe I should have included decomposition?

Was I wasting your time because of this part: "...with no future hope of a resurrection?" I was thinking mostly about the adjective 'future'. You believe the resurrection is prior to physical death, don't you? So when a body is buried there is no future hope of resurrection. I didn't mean to say that you have no hope of resurrection at all.

As for me, I wouldn't say I'm fixated on the resurrection, but I'm certainly looking forward to it. I believe that Christ did not fail to free us from the curse. On the contrary, he has purchased our redemption - completely and fully - which includes our future resurrection in an incorruptible, immortal body to live forever on the new earth where God is going to dwell with us. This is what I believe.

I don't find the scripture from John 5 to be foreign because I can hold in my head the notion of something having been purchased but not yet totally fulfilled. I can appreciate using language in a present tense to describe that which has begun yet hasn't completely come to pass.

As for Hymenaeus and Philetus (and perhaps Alexander) overthrowing the faith of others, I believe that some people (not you, Mellontes) could take spiritual resurrection as license to sin freely, thus overthrowing faith for licentiousness. I think this is why Paul was warning about them.

Edited to add: The Apostle Paul makes this argument in 1 Corinthians 15: If men are not resurrected from the dead, then Christ is not resurrected; if Christ is not resurrected, then we are still in our sins and to be pitied. I agree with Paul. I realize that you do too, it's just that you have a different meaning for resurrection, so this passage means something different for you. I truly think it's Christ physical resurrection that assures us we are no longer slaves to sin, and if Christ has risen, so will we.

Somewhere earlier you said you could hear the gales of laughter if such a notion was foreign to the listeners, yet you seem flabbergasted when you are poked, ribbed, and outright ridiculed for your teaching.

I want to ask more questions, but if you're truly done, so am I.