Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stan who wrote (36303)	1/11/2004 5:18:37 PM
From: Berry Picker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

OK - answer you shall have. The reason I pointed out that you stressed the word "it" in the verses you quoted from 1Cor15 is because you are forming the identical argument that was used of Luther against Zwingli hundreds of years ago to *prove* transubstantiation. I do not know why you want an answer without being willing to answer my question but that is all right with me as I am commanded the following: 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. I often fail but perhaps today I will overcome in some small way. I will point out however it is difficult to answer a question to someone if you do not know at what 'level' of understanding they are. It is impossible for me to know what level you are at if you will not either answer my questions or admit that you can't... You see I do not know if you know about the debate over transubstantiation or what it even is and so I must now explain that to make what should be a brief and easy point. However - I am up to the typing if you are up to the reading. Zwingli and Luther were both men who are remembered as reformers during the protestant movement of the 16th century etc. The doctrine of 'transubstantiation' is a Roman Catholic dogma that taught that after the ordained priest said the decreed and official church blessing over the wine and breads that it actually and really became the body and blood of Jesus and not merely a figurative representation. The arguments go much deeper as to if there is actually and really any spiritual power within the 'elements' (bread and wine) or if the power is merely a mental exercise of remembering or if there is any spiritual effectiveness even if not derived from the actual elements themselves or if they are not given spiritually to those who through faithful obedience apply carnal elements and yet receive spiritual blessing but not derived of the bread or wine itself. Zwingli argued that the idea that any 'ordained' priest was turning mere carnal elements - although ordained of God - into very real and physical realities of the thing represented was foolishness and neigh to magic. In fact, the Roman Catholic church burned at the stake many who practiced what David Copperfield does today as 'witches' The age old saying "abra cadabra" was actually invented to mock what the Roman Catholic Priests actually said over the elements when they supposedly had the power and ability to actually and physically change mere wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ although it still 'appeared' to men as wine and bread. Most of those who were repenting of Rome and becoming Protestants recognized that the doctrine of 'transubstantiation' was being held dearly because the idea kept many in the church of Rome. It was Rome who had 'inherited' this power from the "first pope" who was supposed to be Peter - another convenient self serving theory. Luther - although a "reformer" was blinded from seeing the bread and wine as anything less than being effectual of themselves and actually and physically the 'body and blood' of Jesus. Zwingli and Luther were to meet. Zwingli wanted to unite the reformers and this point was dividing them. Zwingli hoped that by reasoning with Luther he could persuade Luther to 'his way' of thinking by looking at other statements that seem to be just as literal and yet mutually admitted as figurative. The meeting was an utter failure. Zwingli was reduced to tears publicly while Luther told him that they were "not of the same spirit" Luther's final and only argument was reduced to one little word - "is" He, in the end of the public meeting, was reduced to yelling and pounding his fist upon the bible saying "IS IS IS Luther was insisting that when Jesus said "is" that Jesus meant "is" Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. He said - as history records - "This is my body is is is !!!" Luther would not be persuaded. Jesus however said similar things: John 10:9 I am the door:... Say that Jesus has hinges and a knob would be foolish. To think you could win the argument by screaming "Jesus said - I am the door I am I am I am does not prove that Jesus was actually and physically a door. Jesus was not a shepherd - he was a carpenter - but he says he is the good shepherd. Statements must be taken in the manner they are generally taken unless one can prove that the point they are making was the point actually being made to argue from word usage is not usually effective in and of itself. I want to attempt to point out that while I understand your argument about the word "it" I do not think it is an effective argument when you look at what Paul was actually saying in those verses in that exact same chapter and dissertation. Most people who believe in the resurrection believe it was to be a physical resurrection of the same bodies that men were buried in. I want to compliment you on knowing one of the better reasonings offered by those who attempt to prove a physical resurrection of self same bodies. Genesis 50:25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. The argument is that Joseph ‘knew that God would “visit them” (second coming) and resurrect them and so he wanted to be resurrected in Israel so he made them swear to carry his bones into the promised land and re-bury them there – lest he should either miss the resurrection or be resurrected in Egypt. My question to you is – do you really think that is a good argument? Does the verse really teach anything like that? Why would someone decide that when Joseph said “God will surely visit you” that it refers to the second coming. God did visit them through Moses – that is the visit he refers to so to think that Joseph is thinking about the resurrection is pure speculation. Why not think many things were within Joseph mind? Perhaps he just did not want to be buried in Egypt. Perhaps it was his way of being remember by his offspring – after all God did save Israel through Joseph from the famine – Joseph the rejected one and Joseph was predicting yet another saviour like himself namely Moses. Now I know you will say I have done nothing to persuade you. However – you can not prove that Joseph was thinking about a physical resurrection when you point to that verse – knowing where you are at and where I am at the verse become a wash in my mind but let me ask you this. If Joseph was asking that his BONES be buried in the promised land because God would then in some way have to resurrect him there. What happens to the flesh and blood that stayed in Israel? You see I am acting silly because I think the argument is silly. I do not think it proves anything about the nature of the resurrection. It simply proves that Joseph was indeed a prophet and knew that God would “visit the Jews” and lead them out of Egypt into the promised land that was promised to all his forefathers. Here Stan is why I say your question is easy to answer. Because your theory about the resurrection is easy to state Please Stan – DIG DEEP at this point and give what I say at least a chance This is the question Paul said was being asked…. 1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Now *IF* what most people believe is true – how easy is it to answer? Here is another question to you….. If the answer is so simple to explain – why does the Holy Ghost take from verses 35 to 54 (some 20 verses) to say what you and those who believe as you do could explain in a few words if it is true? Is the Holy Spirit as ‘long winded’ or worse than I am? Consider this statement made after Christ was resurrected and taken into heaven 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. John saw the resurrected Christ and the body that Christ had – why then does he say that it had not yet been manifested (made plain) what they would be? If we get resurrected physically wherever our bones may lie in the re-gathered physical atoms what happens to those atoms shared through cannibalism (sorry) If our ‘flesh and blood bodies" get resurrected why did Paul say this in those very same verses you attempt to use to prove such: 1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Corruption is not “moral” in these verses it is the ability to return to dust. Our present bodies are from dust and will return to dust – even as did Josephs….. I assure you that even his bones are now dust. Jesus was the only exception - another proof of who He is. Brian