Featured Why Did Christ say This? (1 of 2)

Great post

 

Why stop at verse 21???? Read verse 22:


17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

If you are trying to suggest that this does not refer to the literal resurrection of the physical body of Jesus Christ you are simply teaching absolute falsehoods! The gates of hades SHALL NEVER prevail against His church (Mt. 16:18) but the body in this context was "destroyed" and then raised up after three days.

Note that both verse 17 and verse 22 refer to what the Disciples "remembered" after his resurrection and it is scripture about the resurrection of his physical human body not the church as John later testifies:

Joh 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.


The response of Christ in verses 19-21 is in direct response to the question by the Scribes and Pharisees in verse 18. Hence, so much for your argument about non-sequitur as verses 19-21 are placed within a logical contextual reference point which your interpretation not only denies but perverts. You are interpreting Christ's words equally as erroneous as his enemies rather than the interpretation the writer (John) gives for the precise reason to avoid that kind of false interpretation (vv. 21-22). The "body" in verse 21 is the one needing "resurrection" in verse 22 as both verse 21 and 22 go together as John's explanation of Christ's words. The "church" is not even mentioned in the entire context and yet you feel free to eisgetically insert it to support your own twisted false doctrine that you have been attempting to pass off on this forum.

For the life of me, I don't understand why this board puts up your absolute heretical teachings about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the saints?????

 

Yeah right! How do you account for your own interpretation which reads:

This is an obvious example to start with, seeing that the text itself unlocks for us Christ's intended application. The hostile Jews in this confrontation, having just seen Him (from their viewpoint) violate the sanctity of their temple, when they heard Christ's words in verse 19 thought naturally of the physical temple. But He intended to draw their attention to the real and spiritual temple, His own Body - the Church of the Living God, a spiritual house of which this earlier structure was mere preparation.

You explicitly say that the intent of what they "thought naturally of the physical temple. BUT HE INTENDED to draw their attention to the real spiritual temple, His own body - THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, a SPIRITUAL HOUSE....."

That is just plain nonsense and the common interpretation of those who deny the resurrection of his PHYSICAL body from the grave. His PHYSICAL body is not "the church of the living God, a spiritual house" as the "church of the Living God" the gates of hades cannot "destroy" as Jesus asserts "destroy this body." You are denying this passage refers to precisely what John the inspired writer interprets it to apply to and that is his PHYSICAL HUMAN BODY - vv. 21-22

Furthermore this is not an example of "Non-sequiturs are responses to a previous comment that does not seem to follow logically to the topic being discussed" in regard to the BIBLICAL CONTEXT. You may argue it is in the mind of the listeners (Jews) but the Biblical context provides a clear purpose for the statement and clear application.

 

I often disagree with Tom, but on this (and many other things) I don't know enough to contribute and agree or disagree). But let me say this CLEARLY.

I don't know how this board puts up with your arrogance.

 

It seems that is the only kind of response people like you have when they cannot dispute intelligently the issues that I set forth. You can't deny what I said so attack the messenger. That tells a lot about you not me. If you confess you don't know enough to respond to the issues being discussed perhaps keeping your own mouth shut might be wisdom on your part. Think about it!

This man denies the physical resurrection of saints, look at his past posts. Don't be so naive. HE DENIES THAT 1 CORINTHIANS 15 teaches a PHYSICAL BODILY RESURRECTION! That is pure heresy as the fundementals of the faith is "the resurrection OF THE DEAD" - Heb. 6:2. The gates of hell "SHALL NEVER PREVAIL AGAINST the church. This man is a heretic pure and simple as he is denying a fundemental of the faith just like a JW except he applies it to the SPIRITUAL BODY of Christ - the church.

 

Last time I checked the Watch Tower Jehovah Witnesses organization was considsered a "cult." One reason is they deny fundementals of the faith. The obvious one they deny is the doctrine of God. However, another essential article of the faith is "the resurrection OF THE DEAD" which they also deny.

Indeed, they interpret John 2:18-21 precisely and almost exactly as does the author of this thread. They interpret 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrected "body" as a "spiritual" body almost exactly as the author of this thread. Both the author of this thread and J.W's deny the physical bodily resurrection of the saint but rather teach that a "spiritual" body is something other than what went down "dead" in the grave and therefore both deny the "resurrection OF THE DEAD." The very term "resurrection" means to "rise up and you cannot "rise up" what never went down! This is a fundemental of the faith and to deny it is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ and his victory over sin as physical death of the physical body is one vital aspect of the VICTORY OF DEATH over us. To deny the PHYSICAL BODILY resurrection of the saint is to repudiate the "hope" of the gospel. It is as worse a heresy as denying the Trinity, the virgin birth or any other fundemental essential of the faith.

 

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body - and the difference is between "IT" being sown versus being raised.

Notice the same pronoun and it is singular not plural. The whole passage is dealing with "the body" in the singular or GENERIC SENSE as ALL DIED IN ADAM - v. 21.

The physical body goes down in the gave because it is sown in corruption. The same "it" that goes down in the grave is raised up out of the grave in incorruption.

The physical body goes down in the grave in dishonor. The same "it" that goes down in the grave is raised in power.

The physical body goes down in the grave as a natural sown body. The same "it" that goes down in the grave comes up out of the grave a spiritual body = a body raised in incorruption, in power without the indwelling principle of sin that dominates it unto death - instead it is a man completely dominated under the Spirit - spiritual.

The JW position is that "spiritual" means "a phantom" or a body like angels with organic composition but can appear to be human. They attempt to ignorantly use the phrase "flesh and bone" cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven without realizing this is a common metaphor used in scriptures consistently to refer to the NATURAL UNGLORIFIED state of man (the body sown in corruption, without power, without honor but under the ruling principle of sin that brings it to death) and does not refer to literal flesh and literal one as literal flesh and literal bone are incapable of revealing the gospel truth (Mt. 16:17)

This is a fundamental truth that only cults and heretics deny which Paul calls "false witnesses" and says that if the physical body of Christ and/or the saint does not rise again out of the grave then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins. Nothing can be more fundamental to our faith than this truth. The author of this thread denies this fundamental truth.

 

The truth is painfully piercing isn't it sir. As far as general intelligence, I would be happy to go against you. You perhaps overlooked my disclaimer which preceded my observational truth.

 

Look, I could care less if you think you are Einstein. This man is a heretic and the evidence is there if you want to dispute that. I will stick with the issues and let you worry about your ego.

 

Here again are the evidences that no one seemingly wants to even try to dispute, not even the author of this thread. Rather, it is far easier to simply ignore the evidences that scripture clearly identifies those who oppose these fundamentals to be "false witnesses" and if the shoe fits wear it, if it does not then provide a sound exegetical basis to demonstrate why such a person with such a position is not a "false witnesses" or heretics just as JW's who take the exact same position and use the very same interpretative approach, as that position is a denial of the faith, a repudiation of the gospel hope.

 

You make unsupported accusations that are simply not true to fact, and no surprise there!

1. First, I NEVER said you were a JW anywhere at anytime - that is simply another falsehood. I said you share the same interpretation as the JW and I limited to exactly two specific texts (Jn 2:18-22; 1 Cor. 15 and the word "spiritual" and "flesh and blood") - get your facts right.

2. Second, you have denied that 1 Corinthians 15 teaches bodily resurrection of the saint. Do I need to quote you in the 1 Corinthian 15 thread to prove it?? Paul says those who do what you are doing are "false witnesses."

3. Third, you have no exegetical based response to the Biblical text and interpretation I provided. Just a smear job accusation that has no basis whatsoever! You simply accuse me of misquoting Paul but do not back up your accusation with anything but pure accusation. I provided not merely context but interpretation that you dare not even address and it is obvious why you dare not address it.

4. Finally, my experience with you on this subject is that you are exegetically incapable of dealing with evidence presented contrary to your theories and so you simply make empty accusations, excuses and personal attacks and then run as fast as your little feet can carry you.

 

Here again is contextual based response that our friend dares not directly address.

 

Here again is a contextual based response that our friend dares not directly address.

 

YOU wish to make a point to me about ego....that is absurd hypocrisy.

 

You have to be kidding???? Here you go again making accusations you don't substantiate or can substantiate, just another smear job. This is your normal response when YOU can't respond intelligently to plain English. I set forth the contextual based evidence that exposes your errors in clear readable English that anyone can understand, and that is the real problem for you - anyone can understand what I said. Fine, I will let the readers judge who really is incapable here as they can read plain English.