Time to play Solve the Riddle.

[LightofTruth]

[

Yeah yeah yeah, ZZZzzzz..........

What's your point?

If there is no resurrection of the dead then the dead remain dead as the Sadducees say.
God cannot be the God of those who are dead and remain dead.
He can only be the God of those IF there is a resurrection of the dead.

Therefore, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then all those who have died have no God.

 

[LightofTruth]

It is said that the patriarch David is both dead and buried(Acts 2:29). And Jesus asked the Pharisees how is that Jesus could be both David's son and his Lord.(Matt 22:45)
Paul says that Jesus is Lord of both the living and the dead.(Rom 14:7-9)
Jesus, therefore, could not be David's Lord if there is no resurrection of the Dead. Nor could God be his God.

Jesus says that he is the resurrection and the life and that no man can come to the Father except by him.

Therefore, all those without Christ as their Lord and savior have neither any hope or any Lord or any God and will remain dead.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are all sinners, and while sinners we accept the gift of eternal life.

This whole thread is a bit of a riddle to me. It is hard to understand just what people are talking about.

This is what we are discussing: the nature of that eternal life. It is what the OP is arguing about. They are arguing for physical resurrection versus ghostly resurrection and the ghost going into a comfortable afterlife. I'm arguing that the NT authors believe in a different (third) kind of resurrection that the OP does not envision, that the individual must end and accept this end to be in Christ. I'm arguing that many Christians find this discomfiting and so often reject it.

Then God makes us spiritually alive through His Spirit in us and we hopefully cooperate in changing our mind about many things in our lives and are led by the Spirit, through faith and obedience into being a changed person.

That is the way many paid preachers say it, but they are paid to spin it that way. People throughout pagan history have wanted to be told they'd have an afterlife. I think its a pagan spin which rejects communal life. The reason I think this is important to point out is that Christians, today and for multiple centuries have focused upon ourselves as if we were not Christians. It has become for many not about Christ but about ourselves individually, our entry into an afterlife, the preservation of our memories, our relationships. This has some very bad results that are plain.

We are putting to death our carnal nature and the Spirit is producing fruit in us.

Jesus is quoted to say that out of the heart comes all kinds of evil such as evil thoughts. He also says anyone who follows him must take up the cross, denying themselves. It seems plain he refers to the death of the person's identity. This I say is the reason of the riddle and the reason for all of those passages about being in a living death and of being a living sacrifice and of giving up family and on and on. It matches with the idea of burial in baptism and explains many NT passages.

When we die and are resurrected we get an improved spiritual body, meaning that we can control it by our spirit, the carnal nature being taken away presumably.

The reason for making a fuss about this is that Christians have not been doing what Christians are charged with doing. There are unadopted ophans, because we are focused on making our own families. There are people in rest homes, because we don't do that stuff. There are people on the streets, because of us too. In general we haven't done what the early Christians did. We have "Left our first love" as the writer warns in Revelation, and it has to do with this slack view of the afterlife. Far better that there be fewer Christians and a denying of self then for there to be many, many Christians looking forward to an eternity on the couch.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus said to the Sadducees, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the living." But Paul says that Christ is Lord both of the dead and living.

Solve the riddle.

Two different people have two different opinions? Where's the riddle?

 

[LightofTruth]

This is what we are discussing: the nature of that eternal life. It is what the OP is arguing about. They are arguing for physical resurrection versus ghostly resurrection and the ghost going into a comfortable afterlife. I'm arguing that the NT authors believe in a different (third) kind of resurrection that the OP does not envision, that the individual must end and accept this end to be in Christ. I'm arguing that many Christians find this discomfiting and so often reject it.

A third kind of resurrection?

Are you referring to being dead to sin whereby we no longer ought to serve sin as our Master?

That is NOT the topic of this thread.

You see, in order to understand passages of Scripture, we need to consider the context of those passages.
So, if we consider the context of those passages pointed to in the OP, we can understand the seeming contradiction in them.

If you would like to discuss a third kind of resurrection....of which is out of context of these passages....start a new thread.

 

[LightofTruth]

Two different people have two different opinions? Where's the riddle?

God offers hope of a resurrection from the dead. Darwin doesn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God offers hope of a resurrection from the dead. Darwin doesn't.

Was that supposed to have something to do with the post you quoted?

 

[viole]

Jesus said to the Sadducees, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the living." But Paul says that Christ is Lord both of the dead and living.

Solve the riddle.

Simple, God is not equal Christ.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LightofTruth]

Two different people have two different opinions? Where's the riddle?

The riddle supposes that Jesus is not in contradiction with Paul. It's directed to those who would agree with that assumption.

 

[LightofTruth]

Simple, God is not equal Christ.

Ciao

- viole

If the dead be raised from the dead to life eternal then they will have both a God and a Lord.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Jesus said to the Sadducees, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the living." But Paul says that Christ is Lord both of the dead and living.

Solve the riddle.

The Sadducees were spiritually dead. In another passage Christ said “let the dead bury the dead” So that is saying they are spiritually dead and don’t have God in their hearts as they reject the Son of God.

The other saying is saying that God is Lord of all mankind whether spiritually dead or alive or physically dead or alive and that God is Lord of both this world and the world hereafter.

 

[LightofTruth]

The Sadducees were spiritually dead. In another passage Christ said “let the dead bury the dead” So that is saying they are spiritually dead and don’t have God in their hearts as they reject the Son of God.

The other saying is saying that God is Lord of all mankind whether spiritually dead or alive or physically dead or alive and that God is Lord of both this world and the world hereafter.

The context refers to the doctrine of the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They argued that a women would have multiple husbands if the dead are raised back to life. The context is NOT on "spiritual death".

Jesus says that when the dead are raised they neither marry or are taken in marriage because they are like the angels of God in heaven.

Don't you think we ought to stay in context?

 

[Brickjectivity]

A third kind of resurrection?

This is what we are discussing: the nature of that eternal life. It is what the OP is arguing about. They are arguing for physical resurrection versus ghostly resurrection and the ghost going into a comfortable afterlife. I'm arguing that the NT authors believe in a different (third) kind of resurrection that the OP does not envision, that the individual must end and accept this end to be in Christ. I'm arguing that many Christians find this discomfiting and so often reject it.

Are you referring to being dead to sin whereby we no longer ought to serve sin as our Master?

That is NOT the topic of this thread.

I'm referring being dead to self, referring to baptism, referring to being buried with him and the definition of resurrection. Here is the OP:

Jesus said to the Sadducees, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the living." But Paul says that Christ is Lord both of the dead and living.

Solve the riddle.

That is the OP. I'm simply saying that neither of the options kindly implied by the first poster (yourself), matches the greater context which you beg me to keep. I haven't derailed the thread or started a new topic. I'm on topic. I'm talking about 'The' resurrection in a way you didn't bring up. Perhaps you were trying not to give away the meaning of the riddle.

If you would like to discuss a third kind of resurrection....of which is out of context of these passages....start a new thread.

Simply saying that the proper interpretation, the contextual interpretation, is life in Christ and death to self. Its a third only in that it doesn't match either of the two options that you would have, but its not an invention on my part and is part of the context. It deserves to be in the thread. Neither a simply physical resurrection or a ghostly representation of self is denial of self, because these retain the heart in contradiction to many NT statements. They don't fit the context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The riddle supposes that Jesus is not in contradiction with Paul.

Yes: that was my point. Why assume this?

More importantly, why refuse to re-evaluate the assumption when you see an apparent contradiction with the facts at hand?

I'm sure there are all sorts of ways to use mental gymnastics to resolve the conflict - I especially liked @viole 's approach of saying that Christ is not God - but why ignore the possibility that's staring you in the face: that they're two different people who don't necessarily agree with each other?

It's directed to those who would agree with that assumption.

You posted it in a forum for posts directed at everyone.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus said to the Sadducees, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the living." But Paul says that Christ is Lord both of the dead and living.

Solve the riddle.

"God is actively interacting with dead patriarchs, because they are righteous through trust in God . . . God will judge the unrighteous dead and all the living when He returns."

 

[LightofTruth]

Yes: that was my point. Why assume this?

More importantly, why refuse to re-evaluate the assumption when you see an apparent contradiction with the facts at hand?

I'm sure there are all sorts of ways to use mental gymnastics to resolve the conflict - I especially liked @viole 's approach of saying that Christ is not God - but why ignore the possibility that's staring you in the face: that they're two different people who don't necessarily agree with each other?


You posted it in a forum for posts directed at everyone.

You're certainly welcomed to try to resolve the contradiction by saying that the two(Jesus and Paul) disagree with each other, But how does that resolve the contradiction?

 

[LightofTruth]

"God is actively interacting with dead patriarchs, because they are righteous through trust in God . . . God will judge the unrighteous dead and all the living when He returns."

How does God interact with the dead?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're certainly welcomed to try to resolve the contradiction by saying that the two(Jesus and Paul) disagree with each other, But how does that resolve the contradiction?

It tells us that the contradiction doesn't need to be resolved.

Two people said things that give the impression that they disagree? Well, maybe they just disagree.

 

[LightofTruth]

It tells us that the contradiction doesn't need to be resolved.

Two people said things that give the impression that they disagree? Well, maybe they just disagree.

If there is to be a resurrection of the dead, then they both agree, and the seeming contradiction is solved.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The context refers to the doctrine of the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They argued that a women would have multiple husbands if the dead are raised back to life. The context is NOT on "spiritual death".

Jesus says that when the dead are raised they neither marry or are taken in marriage because they are like the angels of God in heaven.

Don't you think we ought to stay in context?

If I misunderstood, my humble apologies.