Why Did Christ say This? (1 of 2)

[The Biblicist]

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

If you cant respond to the issues being plainly set forth in easy readable English, just as Tom is also incapable of doing, then why waste my time with personal attacks. Neither of you can respond to the simple plain Biblical evidence I have set forth and YOU BOTH KNOW IT! So go ahead and save your egos and run as fast as you can! If I am so simple, stupid and unintelligent, then it should be a very easy thing to simply expose my simplistic arguments, since you fella's are so smart! But, neither of you even attempt to respond to simple (I admit "simple") clear arguments that expose Tom's errors. He repudiates the bodily resurrection of saints and does not deny it and it would do him no good to deny it as he makes that very extremely clear in the thread on 1 Corinthians 15 that anyone can read for themselves. However, the only way out for both of you is to steer clear of my arguments and attack my person in order to save your own ego. Fine, I will let the other readers be the judge. However, anyone who denies the bodily resurrection of the saints is a heretic in the first degree and primary meaning of the term as Paul explicitly classifies all who deny bodily resurrection of the just to be "false witnesses" and perverter/deniers of the gospel of Jesus Christ as such a denial demands we are still in our sins and Christ's death was in vain and I quote:

But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead Frise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

The resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the saints are INSEPARABLE (see verse 16 in bold), and Paul claims to deny one is to deny the other as they are in a cause and effect relationship. Notice how Paul begins with the resurrection of the saints first (v. 13a) as the basis for the resurrection of Christ and then works from the resurrection of Christ (v. 14a) to prove the resurrection of the saints - showing they are inseparably related and to deny one is to deny both. Tom denies the physical resurrection of the saints and claims that the resurrection in view in 1 Corinthians 15:12-57 is the singular "body of Christ" or the church! That is a lie of Satan and a clear repudiation of the very essence of the hope and of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you cant respond to the issues being plainly set forth in easy readable English, just as Tom is also incapable of doing, then why waste my time with personal attacks. Neither of you can respond to the simple plain Biblical evidence I have set forth and YOU BOTH KNOW IT! So go ahead and save your egos and run as fast as you can! If I am so simple, stupid and unintelligent, then it should be a very easy thing to simply expose my simplistic arguments, since you fella's are so smart! But, neither of you even attempt to respond to simple (I admit "simple") clear arguments that expose Tom's errors. He repudiates the bodily resurrection of saints and does not deny it and it would do him no good to deny it as he makes that very extremely clear in the thread on 1 Corinthians 15 that anyone can read for themselves. However, the only way out for both of you is to steer clear of my arguments and attack my person in order to save your own ego. Fine, I will let the other readers be the judge. However, anyone who denies the bodily resurrection of the saints is a heretic in the first degree and primary meaning of the term as Paul explicitly classifies all who deny bodily resurrection of the just to be "false witnesses" and perverter/deniers of the gospel of Jesus Christ as such a denial demands we are still in our sins and Christ's death was in vain and I quote:

But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead Frise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

The resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the saints are INSEPARABLE (see verse 16 in bold), and Paul claims to deny one is to deny the other as they are in a cause and effect relationship. Tom denies the physical resurrection of the saints and claims that the resurrection in view in 1 Corinthians 15:12-57 is the singular "body of Christ" or the church! That is a lie of Satan and a clear repudiation of the very essence of the hope and of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tom claims he is not denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, while Paul clearly states that if any deny the bodily resurrection of the saints that is denial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

6 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

as the resurrection of Christ HAS NTHER PURPOSE than to ensure the hope of bodily resurrection of His people. Thus to deny the bodily resurrection of His people IS to deny any validity of Christ's resurrection. Paul is clearly stating that the resurrection OF THE DEAD is inseparably dependent upon the resurrection of Christ. Christ's dead body was the object of resurrection and the resurrection of the saint is also "OF THE DEAD" body. To claim that the resurrection of Christ IS OF HIS DEAD PHYSICAL BODY but the resurrection of the saint is NOT OF THE DEAD BODY makes Paul's connection between the two no connection at all. Tom argues that John 2:18-22 refers only to the SPIRITUAL BODY of Christ, the church rather than the physical body of Christ but John demands it is the PHYSICAL body resurrected (Jn. 2:20-21), just as Tom argues that the resurrection of the saints in 1 Cor. 15:12-57 is the SPIRITUAL BODY or church rather than the physical body of the saint. However, the church is promised that the gates of hades "shall not prevail" against it, but the body in view in 1 Corinthians is one that the gates of hades did prevail against:

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave,[Gr. HADES] where is thy victory?

Notice that "hades" has prevailed against this body and has the victory until it is resurrected. Note the time words "when" and "then" showing the time of victory of this body over hades is not till its resurrection.

However, the church is promised that the gates of hades shall never prevail against it and I quote:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Gr. Hades] shall not prevail against it.

Tom's view is plain heresy and is a based upon a complete eisgetical perversion of both John 2 and 1 Corinthians 15.

What I have stated is in clear easy understandable English!

 

[The Biblicist]

Waste of time

 

[quantumfaith]

Waste of time

Wow, unbelievable we agree on that.

 

[The Biblicist]

Wow, unbelievable we agree on that.

You never contribute with anything substantial to any discussion. You seem to be happy to sit on the side line and wait to contribute the only thing your capable of contributing - personal insults. That is why it is a waste of time to discuss anything with you.

I set forth clear evidence and drew a clear conclusion (you did not like) and your only input are insults.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Here is a clear argument with clearly stated contextual based evidences that opposes the OP of the author. Yet neither he or Quantum addresses a single solitary things. The only contribution by them is personal assault - period.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Here is a clear argument with clearly stated contextual based evidences that opposes the OP of the author. Yet neither he or Quantum addresses a single solitary things. The only contribution by them is personal assault - period.