1 Mr. Ellicot CLEARLY stated my interpretation is preferred. Meaning yours is not preferred. A synonym for "not preferred" is unacceptable. Which means incorrect. Unfortunately, Mr. Ellicot was speaking from both sides of his mouth. Once again, being politically correct. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Smith were more direct. They confirm your interpretation is unsatisfactory, meaning poor, essentially incorrect. You were incorrect to suggest that it was correct. It happens. It’s time to concede the point and move on.
I see. So if I have two hats, one red and the other blue and I say “
Either hat is good for a rainy day but I
prefer the red hat”, it means the blue hat is not preferred. A synonym for “not preferred” is unacceptable, which means incorrect, which means the blue hat is incorrect to wear on rainy days. If I insist either hat is fine then I am talking from both sides of my mouth and I am simply being “politically correct” about hats.
Got it James!
2. I didn't ask you a specific question. It was a rhetorical question.
No, you asked me a specific question which was rhetorical, which is quite different from asking no specific question at all. Honestly James, if you didn’t interject assertions like these into your answers, my responses would be less “wordy” and we could move on quicker, as I think you've made it very clear you would like my responses to be shorter.
You provided no explanation why your analogy is not false. Thus your false analogy stands. And that's ok. We all make them at times.
You can’t be serious James. You want me to explain why my analogies are not false? Wouldn’t that be your job, not mine, since you disagree with my analogy?
Aren’t you the person complaining about my “wordiness”? If I include documentation why a clear analogy is “not false”, you would go ballistic!!!
3. The disciples' fear invoked Jesus to calm their fears by assuring them He, at the time, is not a ghost (spirit). He did so by stating, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Jesus made a statement of assurance, not one of exclusivity. We know this is the correct context because He is not exclusively made of solid flesh and bones (1 Co 15:45 and 2 Co 3:17) .
Okay….so Jesus was a “spirit creature” with flesh and bones, assuring his disciples spirits creatures don’t have flesh and bones. That had to be quite a feat, but if such is the case, it not only makes Jesus deceptive but a liar as well. How can the Word of God say spirit creatures don’t have flesh and bones if he’s standing right smack in the middle of them as a spirit creature with flesh and bones?
And what do you mean by "He is not exclusively made of
solid flesh and bones"? What other kind of flesh and bones do you think "spirit creatures" have?
4. You are thinking of our supernatural body in terms of our current physical one. Spiritually speaking, our current bodies consist of a separation between shell and spirit. We cannot transform ourselves between the two. Our supernatural body will be absent of that separation. It will have the ability to transform itself between the two states (flesh and bone shell and invisible spirit) instantaneously.
But that still doesn’t answer the question. First, it doesn’t answer the question as to why the stone was removed if Jesus rose as a spirit creature. Secondly, at the point of flesh materialization, the spirit creature is now a spirit creature of flesh and bones which Jesus specifically stated spirit creatures
do not have.
Let’s look at the verses in question again:
1Cor 15:45 is never meant to be treatise or "proof text" on the
manner of Jesus's resurrection, but simply what that resurrection
means for the rest of us. To find out the
manner of Jesus's resurrection we simply go to
John 2:21:
18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
If everyone believed what Jesus
specifically said about raising his
body, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.
5. I'm sorry to say but I've clearly demonstrated how you do not at times understand how sound logic works.
You found yourself between a rock and a hard place after charging in on this spirit creature business, and now you’re blowing off a little steam. Got it.
6. You are right. You were not clear. That's not the question you asked. The question you asked was : "What does Jesus being "sinless" have to do with it" [it meaning Jesus being deceptive] ? [emphasis mine]" see post
here.
Huh? Now you’re not being clear. Can you just answer the question? You stated a sinless Jesus could not be deceptive. I’m simply asking if you think Adam and Eve existing in a sinless state made them incapable of being deceptive. I’m not asking whether one or the other ever sinned, I’m asking about their
sinless state. I want to know what it is about Jesus’ sinless state that made him incapable of being deceptive when it so obviously didn’t work for Adam and Eve.
7. Boy how quickly we forget. The false analogy of a sinless Jesus and Adam which you denied but failed to address (see point 2 in this reply).
See my response immediately above, and my response to point 2 above. I don’t see any point to your “point 2” at all.
As well as the one you made earlier in the thread about a counterfeit $20 bill and the terms everlasting and eternal being similar but not equivalent, which I exposed in point 1
here. Is that terse enough for ya?
Terse yes, but correct, no. How can you say I “failed to address” a point when I addressed it in
post 1845? First you tell us Jesus is a spirit creature with flesh and blood even though Jesus has just told his disciples spirit creature don’t have flesh and blood, and now you’re telling us I failed to address points when in actuality they were addressed.
I’m sensing a pattern here.
Whoa! Now that’s really interesting. You stated “
our context”. Since you seem to disagree with just about everyone when it comes to context, who is “our”?
...simply asking whether you believe existing in a sinless state prevents one from ever sinning is a leading question presupposing Jesus' could have been deceptive.
Nah. It only presupposes your assertion as illogical.
You stated a sinless Jesus could not be deceptive. I simply asked about Adam and Eve, who were also born sinless. My question immediately exposed the problem with your assertion, that’s all. There was nothing “deceptive” about the question itself.
Another fallacy BTW....How many is that, three so far?
Why are you tallying your fallacies? I'd much rather get questions answered then keep a scorecard.
The logical question should be, "Was Jesus being deceptive?"
C’mon James, you can do better than this! I specifically asked you questions about this spirit creature stuff because I was
confident I would receive answers. Now you’re not only going to evade answering the question, you’re going to substitute a new question for mine. In other words, since you can’t answer the question I
actually asked, you simply substitute it with the question you
wished I asked.
Pleeeeeeaaaaase James2ko, can you just answer the question? If I wanted someone to ask questions for me, I would pull out a certain periodical someone left on my door one Saturday and turn my attention to the bottom of the page.
Since deception is a sin and Jesus whole life was sinless, the answer is no. He was not being deceptive.
Well that is good to know.
But since Jesus was not being deceptive, he couldn't possibly be telling his disciples spirit creatures don't have flesh and bones if in fact he's standing there as a spirit creature with flesh and bones.
9. I asked the question based on your statement indicating traditional Christianity believes we will be raised with our current body (flesh and blood). Which I do not believe. It is a supernatural one composed of flesh, bone, and spirit. With the ability to transition between flesh/bone and spirit.
This is not making any more sense to me than your other points.
1. Previously you stated Jesus was raised as a spirit creature. Now you state it is a supernatural one composed of flesh bone and spirit, which is the position of the traditional church. You keep going back and forth as if you're not sure one way or the other.
2. If Jesus is
composed of flesh, bone and spirit, why would it need to
transition between flesh, bone, and spirit? Isn't he already there???
11. Yes. A supernatural, spiritual, glorified "body" with the ability to transform from flesh and bone to spirit, and vice versa at will. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand.
I believe the original question was whether Jesus was
raised as a spirit creature. If you believe he was raised with flesh, bone and spirit then the question is settled between us. If not, please let us know why the stone would be moved, and what happened to Jesus’s body…the one he said he would raise in 3 days. That's the part "...so difficult to understand".
If you think this point is too long, you've got much bigger problems than engaging in wordy dialogue.
Boy, how quickly we forget! It was you who elected yourself arbiter for all things “wordy”, remember? I simply borrowed your ruler.