Judy, I will be more blunt.
Good Debbie, it's always better
to be up front and let us get to know the real you.
Dear, it has been the real me all
along. Less or more blunt does not mean less or more genuine.
It seems to me you almost never hear a message
as a whole.
You mean in the "greater
context?"
No, I mean exactly what I said, a
message as a whole.
I'm beginning to think your
interlinear responses are a strategy for avoiding making a
sustained, coherent argument.
So far as I'm concerned
I've made several "sustained, coherent, responses" which thus far have
been ignored.
I have not ignored anything you
said, I have pored over every word although I have not taken the same
atomistic approach to your responses that you do to mine--maybe that's what
you mean. Oh, did I leave out the part about ghosts and angels? To which
your response was, Does everything have to be extremes? What is extreme
about that? What are the other, less extreme alternatives you are thinking
of? And no, there has been no response on your part that met any normal
criteria with respect to being sustained and
coherent.
You reduce everything to fragments. This is how
you read the Bible, too, and it destroys meaning.
Not so, everything God is
involved with has meaning
How does this fact mean that if
you break wholes into bits you don't destroy the meaning of the whole? What
is the meaning of B? What is the meaning of i? What is the
meaning of b? What is the meaning of l? What is the
meaning of e?
and this is the way He instructs
- line by line, precept by precept,
here a little and there a
little.
One line at a time? Well, I
disagree. Line by line is not the same, BTW, as precept by precept, it
is not the same as here a little and there a little. Please note that the
contrast I am making is not between small things and large,
but between parts and wholes.
I don't know any other way of describing the
problem. I find it quite demoralizing. When you do write something that
is all one piece, like the one G replied to, it is very hard to
make sense of.
Well then, just be up front and
say you don't understand - that's acceptable.
OK. Because it is not
intelligible, I do not understand.
I am not interested in answering the denatured
fragments. Make what you will of that. But I think the answer to your
question about
1 Cor. 15:50 is in the verses coming before,
especially 35-49 and 51-54.
I can read those verses
Thank God.
but I wanted to know your
thoughts that is, whether or not you accept that "flesh and blood cannot
inherit God's Kingdom" because corruption cannot inherit
incorruption.
I did answer that (insofar as
it might possibly relate to your belief that we won't have bodies,
although there may be other things to get from that verse) in my own
words, in the segment directly below.
The reason I referred you to the previous
dialogue with David is that the same verses were talked about there. There
are evidently different kinds of bodies. The perishable one perishes/des,
yes, but is raised imperishable. It bears a relationship to the new one
similar to the relation a seed bears to the growing plant.
A seed bears no resemblance to
the growing plant, it falls into the ground and new life is not evident
until it dies.
How does "new life is not evident
until it dies" contradict anything I said about our bodies? Also, I
said relation, not resemblance. Where does the tissue of
the wheat plant come from, if not from the seed? Go back (this is the third
time now) to the other thread I directed you to, and note also the
caterpillar-butterfly analogy.
This is also the answer to your objection about
"reconditioning the old". I agree, we are not going back to the state of
Adam, but our raison d'�tre as
humans is and will be what it always was, and we are being made into
humans who are able to fulfill it. Debbie
You do have "another" gospel
Debbie - one in which you keep a tight hold on the old and blind to the
new.
How so?? Has the purpose of our
existence (=raison d'�tre) changed, according to you? What is the old to
which I am allegedly clinging? What is the new to which I am purportedly
blind? Is this how you understand the belief that we will continue to be
human beings?
Is there anybody out there whom
Judy has not already categorically written off, to whom she has not
terminally deafened herself, who can address this idea of hers that we will
not be human, that we won't have bodies, and that there is something
intrinsically wrong with being human?
Debbie
Yes, people do use being human as an
excuse. Humanity has been broken for so long, and the story of what we
were made to be (and what we will be in Christ) has become so obscured,
that they think of fallen humanity as the only humanity. To be truly human is to show with all our being
what God is like,
How does "being human" in and
of itself effect this since God Himself is not human? God is a
Spirit (John 4:24)
to be God's regent-servants in
the world he has made, to live in intimate
relationship with God as we were created to
do.
There is just one way back
to "intimate relationship with God" - Things can never revert
back to what they were before the fall. Jesus did not come to
recondition the old. He came to introduce the new. In the garden
Adam and Eve were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
When God made us, he said "very good".
When he completed his work in
Genesis he said "very good" - are you forgetting how many generations
ago that was? Today we are born into a fallen creation as fallen
creatures ......
Jesus is truly human, and
through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, we
are being restored.
Jesus is not the same as the
rest of humanity - He came from heaven. John the Baptist points
this out early on (John 3:31) "He that cometh from above is above all;
he that is of the earth is earthly and speaketh of the earth; he that
cometh from heaven is above all and what he hath seen and heard, that he
testifieth". Paul expounds on this further in 1 Cor
15:42-50.
If humanity is just going to be
extinguished, there is no such thing as salvation. Think of it: you are
animated by the Holy Spirit already
now.
Salvation is not about saving
some old wretched fallen nature Debbie; we are actually "saved from
the wrath of God" by being conformed to the image of Christ and the Holy
Spirit indwells us to help bring this about. The body is changed at the
last trump and even that will not be the same, it is a "transformed
body"
We will have bodies, Judy, although they
will be different. We will not be ghosts or angels.
Did I ever say we would be
ghosts or angels? Why does it have to be from one extreme to the
other?
We will still be human. What could we be
other than human, and be ourselves?
As we have borne the image of
the earthly we will bear the image of the heavenly - but it doesn't
happen by osmosis and there are lots of "ifs, ands, and buts" IOW it
didn't all happen at the incarnation and it necessitates our
cooperation.
There is going to be a new earth, too. You
might want to reference a previous thread in which David and I talked
about the body, salvation, and resurrection.
Joy - Debbie
Debbie writes:
1. We are not saved to be something other
than human. To be truly human does not mean
to be sinful and broken.
What do you mean by "truly
human" Debbie? It's been my experience that ppl usually bring
out "after all they are human" as an excuse
for continuing in sin when
they are threatened by someone they think may be setting the standard
too high.
You can't be talking about
the human body because we all know that "flesh and blood" cannot
inherit God's Kingdom (1 Cor 15:50)
So what are you saying
here... What is your spin?
judyt
