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 (36419)	1/16/2004 9:46:26 PM
From: Jamey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Stan, the Preterists are only taking Jesus at his word. If the Bible is so hard to understand and does not mean what it says, used in the proper context, than how does anybody understand what is being said? I understand that you have studied the texts much longer than I have been able to do but how does one determine that words like "I am coming quickly, the axe is laid to the root of the tree, behold I come quickly, and over 100 immanency verses making them all yet future? I believe that everything Jesus said would be fulfilled has been fulfilled. I would love to have a treasure map of the future like pretrib believers but if they do any serious study of the Bible, it is plain to see that it is just something, through wishful thinking, that they want to be a part of. I wish we could all just talk about the things we do agree on but it seems to be human nature to want to talk about controversial subjects that never proves profitable. :o) James

To: Stan who wrote (36419)	1/25/2004 10:03:08 PM
From: Berry Picker	Respond to of 39621

Stan - just got back yesterday late from a trip. Caught a sinus cold - feel terrible. Will get back to you as soon as I can. Enjoying your posts. Brian

To: Stan who wrote (36419)	1/27/2004 10:51:44 PM
From: Berry Picker	Respond to of 39621

RE>>Brian, it is not right to imply that by disproving the doctrines of Transubstantiation and Universalism, that you have torn down the doctrine of the Resurrection of the physical body. << I don't believe I ever tried to imply anything. What I had hoped to do by bringing those issues into the conversation was to show you something about your argument. You had emphasized the word it in various verses in 1 Cor 15 as IF that word made your conclusion a fact!!! I attempted to show you that Luther did the same with the word is to support something you do not believe. Stan - I was trying to show you that you would not accept your own argument when applied to a conclusion you do not want to reach I am not saying that your conclusion is wrong because you used a bad argument. In fact when I watch most people argue for a conclusion they often use bad arguments (invalid premises) without even realizing they are doing so. I am quite sure that some of my own arguments have not been conclusive. Sometimes what people do in an attempt to prove their conclusion is to offer a multitude of bad arguments thinking this will prove their case. It may in fact persuade many people and yet prove nothing. In fact if you were to press upon a literal interpretation of what Paul said in his seed analogy in 1 Cor 15 and then stayed consistent with what Christ said about seeds and yeast and such where would you be? The fact that Paul called the physical body a "seed" cannot be taken as a scientific analysis or report of what did actually occur at the resurrection. RE>>you would have to prove that the term "flesh" was used primarily as figurative << I do not say that when Paul said "body" that he was referring to something figurative - not all terms in a parable are figurative. In any analogy there can be that which is figurative along side that which is literal - sometime separated by obvious terms such as like or likened unto but sometimes not so obvious. What I saw you doing was using a little word IT and forcing great meaning upon it while ignoring other terms that would seem to hold much more force to me. Example: 1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a {1} natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a {1} natural body, there is also a spiritual body. {1) Gr psychical} That is from the American Standard version.. Here is the same verse from the "authorized" Version: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Stan - do you not see that I would find it very strange to emphasize the word IT and ignore the words natural and Spiritual Here is another translations of that same verse: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Paul is pointing out that there are "different" bodies even between the moon and the sun. Different - does not mean the same People like you keep telling me that the body raised is the same ( maybe improved but still natural or physical) Look at these verses Stan: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be The body sown is not the body to be - it is different - not the same 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed its own body. Every seed has it's own "different body" = not the same 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. All animals have "different" bodies even on earth = not the same 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. Celestial (heavenly) are not the same as terrestrial. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. Verse 41 says what all those verses say = not the same 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: Incorruption is not just improved corruption just as spiritual bodies in not just improved natural bodies 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: Glory is not improved dishonour Power is not improved weakness 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. Natural body = Physical body while Spiritual means what it says.... Stan - Paul goes through verse after verse telling the fool who thinks of the physical carnal body rotted in the ground as a proof that there can be no resurrection stating that the death of the physical is as planned as the death of a natural seed in a garden on earth. no one fears the loss of the seed nor the death of a plant seed as being something that hinders but rather that loss as genesis of something much greater. Verse 36 = loss of the seed (physical body) Verse 37 = physical is not what will be reaped Verses 38 - 41 = different bodies for different purposes Verse 42 = bodies that rot are sown but bodies that will not are reaped Verse 43 = cannot be compared to the glorious body that would be Verse 44 = a natural body sown but a spiritual body raised. Stan - if you want to think that the body raised is to be a super version of this physical one - I am the one who must think that you have some ulterior reason for doing so. You see Stan - contrary to your broad accusation against preterists It does not affect our system at all. We can take whatever body God grants us as we believe we to heaven. It is those who insist that resurrected saints must live in a yet future age on a physical earth who have an agenda. Preterists can go to heaven in whatever vessel God gives us. In fact Preterists are divided on the nature of the resurrected body. Some see it as physical while some do not. It only those who look for a future earthly existence that must insist on physical bodies - we can believe in either and so your words : RE>> From what I am reading here, the preterists are more at fault than most at this sort of thing.<< may be a simple case of the following: Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thy own eye? I have no reason to resist the idea of a physical body other than the words of Paul and other verses. It is Paul who says over and over it is raised a spiritual body Spiritual is not Natural - THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Paul says nothing of rebuilding that which was of carnal use he says it was meant to die - to return to the dust. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. I can not make you see this Stan - but to me it is as plain as anything can get. Concerning Preterism however - it is not really an issue and personally - I could not care less what "kind" of body I get. I am sure it will be well suited for it's future purposes. Brian