resurrection

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

I just got to see what others think on this..............

Since Peter (Kefa) denied Yahshua did he loose his salvation?

Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Just curious is all.

 

[Lucius7]

no. Clearly not.

If Peter had lost his eligability for salvation, how then would he have gone on to be an Apostle in GODs Church and to preach HIS word? The only one of the 12 disciples who was actually accounted as becoming wicked dead in scripture is Judas

Peter died being called chosen and faithful. He spent the remainder of his life spreading the news of Christ and claiming, not denying Him.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

no. Clearly not.

If Peter had lost his eligability for salvation, how then would he have gone on to be an Apostle in GODs Church and to preach HIS word? The only one of the 12 disciples who was actually accounted as becoming wicked dead in scripture is Judas

Peter died being called chosen and faithful. He spent the remainder of his life spreading the news of Christ and claiming, not denying Him.

So you deny what Yahshua said then in Mat 10:33? If not why and if so why?

I love truth. Its what makes the world go round and round. :rainbow1:

 

[Lucius7]

So you deny what Yahshua said then in Mat 10:33? If not why and if so why?

I love truth. Its what makes the world go round and round. :rainbow1:

Is it mans authority to deny the words of GOD or to change their meanings? Can I call Jesus a liar and justify it through scriptures? Is man higher than GOD?

Clearly not. What Christ said was exactly true from start to finish. When GOD says one thing and we percieve something else to have happened, then the error lies not with GOD but in our own understanding.

Go back one verse to MAT 10:32 and you have your answer:

MAT 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess
also before my Father which is in heaven.

What does GOD say are the prequisites for attaining salvation? Called, Chosen and Faithful at the time of death or Christs return.

So go back to Peter. He denied Jesus 3 times that day. Was he faithful? No. If Peters life had been prematurely terminated at that time He would have likely been counted among the wicked dead. But he didn't. Instead he continued to live and spent the rest of His life spreading the good news and faithfully confessing his GOD. By allhistorical and scriptural evidence he died while being called, chosen and faithful and thus will be a beneficiary of the better ressurection.

Have not all of us at some point denied GOD or proven unfaithful? Were we not all deserving of death according to the law? As such Peters redemption is one of the first new covenant testaments of GODs mercy and the validity of justification and redemption through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[S-word]

Quote......Katzpur
The Bible doesn't mention many of the people who witnessed the crucifixion by name. You have made the assumption that none of Jesus' followers were there when He died. I haven't come to the same conclusion, even though I agree with you that His followers were obviously afraid.

No, no, no ,no, you're twisting my words girly, never did I say and nowhere will you find that I have ever said that none of the followers of Jesus were there when he died, What I have said is, that except for the disciple that Jesus loved, none of the other disciples (11 out of his untold number of followers) who were in fear of the Jewish authorities and had fled or were scattered like sheep when Jesus was convicted (AS prophesied by Jesus) are recorded as being witnesses to the crucifiction. Try sticking to the facts girl, and don't go putting lying words into my posts.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Is it mans authority to deny the words of GOD or to change their meanings? Can I call Jesus a liar and justify it through scriptures? Is man higher than GOD?

Clearly not. What Christ said was exactly true from start to finish. When GOD says one thing and we percieve something else to have happened, then the error lies not with GOD but in our own understanding.

Go back one verse to MAT 10:32 and you have your answer:

MAT 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess
also before my Father which is in heaven.

What does GOD say are the prequisites for attaining salvation? Called, Chosen and Faithful at the time of death or Christs return.

So go back to Peter. He denied Jesus 3 times that day. Was he faithful? No. If Peters life had been prematurely terminated at that time He would have likely been counted among the wicked dead. But he didn't. Instead he continued to live and spent the rest of His life spreading the good news and faithfully confessing his GOD. By allhistorical and scriptural evidence he died while being called, chosen and faithful and thus will be a beneficiary of the better ressurection.

Have not all of us at some point denied GOD or proven unfaithful? Were we not all deserving of death according to the law? As such Peters redemption is one of the first new covenant testaments of GODs mercy and the validity of justification and redemption through faith in Christ Jesus.

Very good answer "Light of Zeus" (meaning of the name "Lucius") No offence intended, even though I don’t think we believe in the same El. But there could be more to it. There might be some that look at the denial as a “need” as there was a “need” when David ate the showbread as well as when Yahshua and his disciples where pulling ears of grain to eat on the Shabbat day. Self preservation. J

 

[James Humphreys]

Could you define your terms, please? Jesus pointed out to His Apostles that He had a body of flesh and bones. That sounds "physical" to me. The fact that he had a body of flesh and bones, however, did not mean that it was a mortal body, i.e. one that would be subject to disease and death again. It was spiritual in that it was incorruptable and immortal, but it certainly did have a corporeal form. How else would the Apostles have felt the wounds in His hands, feet and side?

Katzpur, I guess based on what you said in reply to my last post that we do agree on a lot as regards the meaning of the resurrection. Going back though to what you said about a physical resurrection, there I have to respectfully disagree. It is true that in some regards the body in which Jesus appeared to his disciples did seem physical. That is, he ate food with them, and they touched him, and of course could converse with and see him. Then there are also some aspects of the resurrected Jesus that go beyond what is typical of a physical body. The point that Jesus' disciples on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize him for a long time was already brought out. Another point that is that Jesus would suddenly appear and disappear. That capacity is more characteristic of a spirit than a physical body. Jesus also ascended in front of the eyes of his disciples towards the sky. Okay, it could be said that it was the glorified spiritual body that Paul was talking about, so perhaps that body has attributes that we don't. If so though, it stretches the meaning of physical so much that it almost loses meaning to use the word. I believe instead that when the disciples saw Jesus, they were seeing him not with physical eyes, but rather with spiritual eyes. When they heard him speaking to them it was not through their physical ears. When they touched him, they were touching him with their own spiritual bodies, so that he seemed substantial. It is possible that other non-believers may not have been able to see Jesus at all, and as far as I recall Jesus appears exclusively to his disciples after his resurrection. Looking at similar cases in the Bible involving angels, which appeared to, ate with, and wrestled with humans, we know that in essence angels are spiritual beings. I know that many believe that the angels actually take on physical bodies in these kinds of cases, but I believe instead that at times spiritual beings can take on some of the attributes of physical beings, without actually being physical.

 

[Katzpur]

Quote......Katzpur
The Bible doesn't mention many of the people who witnessed the crucifixion by name. You have made the assumption that none of Jesus' followers were there when He died. I haven't come to the same conclusion, even though I agree with you that His followers were obviously afraid.

No, no, no ,no, you're twisting my words girly, never did I say and nowhere will you find that I have ever said that none of the followers of Jesus were there when he died, What I have said is, that except for the disciple that Jesus loved, none of the other disciples (11 out of his untold number of followers) who were in fear of the Jewish authorities and had fled or were scattered like sheep when Jesus was convicted (AS prophesied by Jesus) are recorded as being witnesses to the crucifiction. Try sticking to the facts girl, and don't go putting lying words into my posts.

Calm down. I didn't intentionally put words into your post. You used the word "disciple" to refer to Christ's Apostles, when it really means nothing more than a follower. You said none of His disciples witnessed His crucifixion. Now you're saying that some of them did. An Apostle would have had to be a disciple of Christ (as was John the Beloved), but the words really can't be used interchangeably when you're talking about any of the Twelve Apostles.

 

[Lucius7]

Calm down. I didn't intentionally put words into your post. You used the word "disciple" to refer to Christ's Apostles, when it really means nothing more than a follower. You said none of His disciples witnessed His crucifixion. Now you're saying that some of them did -- except that you used the word "disciple." An Apostle would have had to be a disciple of Christ (as was John the Beloved), but the words really can't be used interchangeably when you're talking about any of the Twelve Apostles.

Katzpur is actually correct in his clarification. The disciples and Apostles of Jesus are not one in the same, although the 12 disciples closest to Jesus were given the ecclesiastical postion as Apostles on Pentecost of the same year. Many perhaps thousands of Christ's disciples could have witnessed the crucifiction. As to evidence as to what Apostles were present, to the best of my knowledge the other poster was correct according to the scriptural account of only one Apostle being definitively present. However, dispite this confusion in terms, I percieve that the term disciple was only mistakenly used as it seems quite clear that he was referring to the 12 and not the multitude of followers and his original idea remains a valid possibility.

 

[S-word]

Katzpur is actually correct in his clarification. The disciples and Apostles of Jesus are not one in the same, although the 12 disciples closest to Jesus were given the ecclesiastical postion as Apostles on Pentecost of the same year. Many perhaps thousands of Christ's disciples could have witnessed the crucifiction. As to evidence as to what Apostles were present, to the best of my knowledge the other poster was correct according to the scriptural account of only one Apostle being definitively present. However, dispite this confusion in terms, I percieve that the term disciple was only mistakenly used as it seems quite clear that he was referring to the 12 and not the multitude of followers and his original idea remains a valid possibility.

You say it seems quite clear that I was referring to the 12 chosen disciples, I say that it was blantenly obvious even to a blind man that I was referring to the disciples chosen by God for his obedient servant Jesus. In the post that Katzpur is referring to, I spoke of the disciples that were cowering in a dimly lit room, as much as she tries to twist and distort that which was said, she knows as everyone else who would care to read that post (You excluded of course, who think that it only appears that I might have been referring to the 12) that I was not referring to the many followers which included the women who had followed him from Galilee with the beloved disciple into whose care Jesus placed his mother who had a husband by the name Cleophas, four strapping sons and daughters also.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Match point "S-WORD" :clap2: :takeabow: :highfive: :jam:

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur, I guess based on what you said in reply to my last post that we do agree on a lot as regards the meaning of the resurrection. Going back though to what you said about a physical resurrection, there I have to respectfully disagree. It is true that in some regards the body in which Jesus appeared to his disciples did seem physical. That is, he ate food with them, and they touched him, and of course could converse with and see him. Then there are also some aspects of the resurrected Jesus that go beyond what is typical of a physical body. The point that Jesus' disciples on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize him for a long time was already brought out. Another point that is that Jesus would suddenly appear and disappear. That capacity is more characteristic of a spirit than a physical body. Jesus also ascended in front of the eyes of his disciples towards the sky. Okay, it could be said that it was the glorified spiritual body that Paul was talking about, so perhaps that body has attributes that we don't. If so though, it stretches the meaning of physical so much that it almost loses meaning to use the word. I believe instead that when the disciples saw Jesus, they were seeing him not with physical eyes, but rather with spiritual eyes. When they heard him speaking to them it was not through their physical ears. When they touched him, they were touching him with their own spiritual bodies, so that he seemed substantial. It is possible that other non-believers may not have been able to see Jesus at all, and as far as I recall Jesus appears exclusively to his disciples after his resurrection. Looking at similar cases in the Bible involving angels, which appeared to, ate with, and wrestled with humans, we know that in essence angels are spiritual beings. I know that many believe that the angels actually take on physical bodies in these kinds of cases, but I believe instead that at times spiritual beings can take on some of the attributes of physical beings, without actually being physical.

I believe that Jesus Christ's resurrected body was "physical" in the sense that it had a tangible form (i.e. flesh and bone). I don't believe it would be accurate to use "physical" as a synonym for "mortal," since Jesus was clearly "immortal." His body was corporeal; it physically occupied space. It was, however, incorruptable and eternal. Would you agree?

 

[Katzpur]

Match point "S-WORD" :clap2: :takeabow: :highfive: :jam:

You're quite the one-man fan club, aren't you?

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

You're quite the one-man fan club, aren't you?

Yep, and I'm very good at it. :cheer:

Nice to know I succeeded in getting you to notice.

 

[James Humphreys]

I believe that Jesus Christ's resurrected body was "physical" in the sense that it had a tangible form (i.e. flesh and bone). I don't believe it would be accurate to use "physical" as a synonym for "mortal," since Jesus was clearly "immortal." His body was corporeal; it physically occupied space. It was, however, incorruptable and eternal. Would you agree?

I agree that Jesus' body was immortal and incorruptible, but nevertheless a spiritual body. The body had spiritual flesh and bones, that is, it was not just a hollow shell. Perhaps incorruptible could be seen in two lights, although I'm not sure if all would agree with me. One sense would be that of not subject to decay, which is basically equivalent to immortal. The other sense would be of not subject to temptation or sin-that is my own take, and I'm not sure if this is a common interpretation. There may arise some confusion here as to what is a spiritual body. I believe that everyone's spirit is composed of a spirit mind and a spirit body. While we are alive our spiritual self, including our spiritual body, cohabits our physical self. When the three disciples saw Jesus transfigured on the mountain, and he shown with a bright light, I believe that they were seeing his spirit body. God allowed their spiritual eyes to be opened to see this. All people when they die have a spiritual body. It is usually invisible to those living, and might seem insubstantial to us. Still, to those living in the spiritual realm it would be very substantial and real. But Jesus was unique in the sense that his body was completely resurrected outside of Satan's reach, not subject to sin.

 

[Katzpur]

I agree that Jesus' body was immortal and incorruptible, but nevertheless a spiritual body. The body had spiritual flesh and bones, that is, it was not just a hollow shell. Perhaps incorruptible could be seen in two lights, although I'm not sure if all would agree with me. One sense would be that of not subject to decay, which is basically equivalent to immortal. The other sense would be of not subject to temptation or sin-that is my own take, and I'm not sure if this is a common interpretation. There may arise some confusion here as to what is a spiritual body. I believe that everyone's spirit is composed of a spirit mind and a spirit body. While we are alive our spiritual self, including our spiritual body, cohabits our physical self. When the three disciples saw Jesus transfigured on the mountain, and he shown with a bright light, I believe that they were seeing his spirit body. God allowed their spiritual eyes to be opened to see this. All people when they die have a spiritual body. It is usually invisible to those living, and might seem insubstantial to us. Still, to those living in the spiritual realm it would be very substantial and real. But Jesus was unique in the sense that his body was completely resurrected outside of Satan's reach, not subject to sin.

That's actually quite similar to my belief. Thanks for your input.

 

[S-word]

I agree that Jesus' body was immortal and incorruptible, but nevertheless a spiritual body. The body had spiritual flesh and bones, that is, it was not just a hollow shell. Perhaps incorruptible could be seen in two lights, although I'm not sure if all would agree with me. One sense would be that of not subject to decay, which is basically equivalent to immortal. The other sense would be of not subject to temptation or sin-that is my own take, and I'm not sure if this is a common interpretation. There may arise some confusion here as to what is a spiritual body. I believe that everyone's spirit is composed of a spirit mind and a spirit body. While we are alive our spiritual self, including our spiritual body, cohabits our physical self. When the three disciples saw Jesus transfigured on the mountain, and he shown with a bright light, I believe that they were seeing his spirit body. God allowed their spiritual eyes to be opened to see this. All people when they die have a spiritual body. It is usually invisible to those living, and might seem insubstantial to us. Still, to those living in the spiritual realm it would be very substantial and real. But Jesus was unique in the sense that his body was completely resurrected outside of Satan's reach, not subject to sin.

When Moses came down from the mountain and read the law to the Israelites, even though the brightness on the face of Mose's physical and mortal body was fading, yet did it shine so bright that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on him.

Were the Israelites seeing the spiritual body of Moses, or the face of Moses lit up by the glory of God?

 

[James Humphreys]

That's actually quite similar to my belief. Thanks for your input.

Okay Katzpur, thank you also for your ideas. Your post quite a bit in different threads, and I always enjoy reading your comments, even though I haven't posted so much myself.

 

[James Humphreys]

When Moses came down from the mountain and read the law to the Israelites, even though the brightness on the face of Mose's physical and mortal body was fading, yet did it shine so bright that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on him.

Were the Israelites seeing the spiritual body of Moses, or the face of Moses lit up by the glory of God?

I don't know, what do you think? I believe that either is possible, but I would incline towards the second in this case.

 

[S-word]

I don't know, what do you think? I believe that either is possible, but I would incline towards the second in this case.

And what about the second instance as recorded in Luke 9: 28, where Peter and his companions were on the mountain in a deep sleep and waking from that deep sleep their minds still clouded and while struggling to focus their minds and their eyes, saw the face of Jesus (As with the face of Moses) change its appearence and his clothes became dazzling white etc? Later, from the cloud that overshadowed them, they heard a voice say, "This is my son, whom I have chosen---listen to him." The two men that they had seen talking with Jesus disappeared with the cloud that had overshadowed them.