Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
Well Ethan, the passage says that Christ came in the flesh. It says nothing about Christ being resurrected in the flesh despite your assertation that it does.
He stated I am a liar and added that I personally lied to each person on the forum, or, if I am not a liar, I am essentially stupid, because I pointed out his errors of grammar and word usage in blindly following the traditions of Armstrongism.
I did not state that you were a liar. I stated that you were either a liar or didn't know what you were talking about because you misrepresented what a perfect partciple is. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and stated that you didn't know what you were talking about...which incidentally is the exact same charge you made against me.
I stated that Jesus Christ was raised bodily from the grave, the body that hung on the Cross, with the scars in His hands and feet visible; He had (and has) a body of flesh and bone in the Resurrection.
You stated it alright, but I gave you scripture that contradicts your notion.
I futher stated that 1 John 4:2 utilizes the perfect participle (past action with continuing results in the present).
Oh no Ethan. This is what you said:
Post 3654: John uses the perfect participle ("has come") in 1 John 4:2, which grammatically means that John indicated that Jesus came in the flesh in the past and remained in the flesh in a continuous reality when John wrote those words, decades subsequent to the Resurrection.
The proof I supplied that shows you are either a liar or don't know what you are talking about WAS NOT refuted by you. Here it is again from post 3660:
*******************************************
In English from the perfect participle refers you to PAST participle.
Past Participle (and thus Perfect Participle) is defined as:
A verb form indicating past or completed action or time that is used as a verbal adjective in phrases such as baked beans and finished work and with auxiliaries to form the passive voice or perfect and pluperfect tenses in constructions such as She had baked the beans and The work was finished. Also called perfect participle.
She HAD baked the beans is given as an example. This does NOT imply that the beans are still baked. They were baked and now they are likely long gone.
Here's yet another example from a teachers resource site on perfect participle:
perfect participle: This is the participle formed using have plus the past participle. For example:
The army, having fought one battle, was marching into another.
Having eaten, they were in a better mood for talking.
As you can see in both examples above no rational person would conclude that the army was fighting the same battle and that "they" were still eating.
Well what about greek?
From the Blue Letter Bible Web Site:
The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
**********************************
As you can see the references I posted show that you fabricated the definition of "perfect participle" when you defined a perfect participle as "that John indicated that Jesus came in the flesh in the past and remained in the flesh in a continuous reality".
The actual definition from people WHO KNOW what they are talking about is that Jesus came in the flesh once, an action that occurred in the past once and for all and never needs to be repeated. God no longer has to come in the flesh to redeem it. It happened ONCE and FOR ALL. This is what it means, not what you say it means.
These are facts. I am not lying and I know precisely of what I speak. Any fair and proper utilization of reputable, scholarly Biblical references will substantiate this fact.
That fact that you did not, or could not, dispute my post above about your definition of perfect participle clearly shows that you are still:
1. Still lying.
2. Still don't know what you're talking about.
Again I'll be charitable and say you still don't know what you are talking about.
I'll address your misuse of "soma" in the next post.
Indeed he did! Makes his Poppa proud! :o)
And I stated that "soma" is also used to refer to animal bodies:
Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
Bodies is soma. Do you disagree? Right there that should show you that the use of the word "soma" does NOT mean automatically that it is a flesh and bone (or blood) human body. It is a body, any body, in general. But in case you folks STILL don't understand:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Body above is soma. Do you dispute that? Here it is in scripture. It proves once again that soma does not automatically mean a flesh and blood body. How about one more example:
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
In the passage above Paul talks about Jews and non-Jews being joined together in ONE body, soma, after the death of Christ on the cross. Interesting huh? What became Christ's physical body after death? The church, the body of Christ. That is what was raised up.
"Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken" (John 2:19-22, NASB).
Previously, "DouglasKC" (who can't read Greek) claimed that the use of the word soma may be used of the "body of Christ,"
No Ethan, not "may". I stated that the word soma IS used in the "body of Christ".
1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Do you deny that "body" here is "soma"? There is no may, or maybe, or hedging about it Ethan. It IS soma.
and therefore since it may be used in such metaphorical usage it therefore didn't pertain to His bodily resurrection of flesh and bone.
I think it's sad and telling that you think that Christians, the body of Christ, inhabited by the spirit of Christ, is just a metaphor.
Its direct and exclusive context is Jesus' physical body being killed and His promise that He would raise it back again.
I don't expect that the actual words used in the bible have an effect on your entrenched tradition, but here they are:
Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Did Jesus say "Kill this body?" No, he said "destroy this temple." What temple?
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
And what was going to happen to the temple of his body?
He was going to raise up the temple, of his body, in three days.
No offense to the "experts" you keep quoting, but now let's see what the actual writers of scripture thought the temple of his body was:
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
There's that pesky Paul again. He thinks the body of Christ, the church, is the temple of the lord. Paul thinks the temple that Christ was talking about IS the church.
1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Paul just doesn't get it. Here again he actually thinks that the church is the temple. Man.
The discples—after the Resurrection had taken place—remembered His promise (v. 22), and the passage explicitly states "but He was speaking of His body" (v. 21).
I noticed that you conveniently left out the word "temple" when you quoted verse 21. Mistake?
Much of the rest of your post is just blather to fill up space, so let me introduce the notion that Christ, Peter and Paul all understood that our physical bodies are temporary places of inhabitation, not meant to be lived in whether or not "sin" is removed from them.
I'm going to make the assumption that you are familiar with a tabernacle. You know (or should) that it is was the temporary, portable structure God had Israel create. It can also mean a tent, or any other temporary dwelling place.
The emphasis is on temporary. A tabernacle is a temporary abode.
Here's Peter:
2Pe 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
Look. Peter refers to his physical body as a tabernacle. He knows that he isn't going to keep his physical body. It's merely a tabernacle until he gets his spiritual body.
2Pe 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
Hmmmm....two ways to read this. Either Christ showed him he was going to die soon, or Christ showed him that the tabernacle of the body was only temporary.
2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Now THIS is a truly interesting verse. Here Paul recognizes that our earthly body is a tabernacle, a temporary dwelling.
Notice something else. He speaks of his earthly body as being "dissolved." Not killed, not murdered, not stuck down, but dissolved. The greek word translated "dissovled" is "kataluo" and it's primary definition is to loosen down, or disintregate.
Now look here as the people mock Christ on his way to crucification:
Mar 15:29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
Do you want to take a guess on what greek word "destroyest" is? Yup, it's the same word that Paul used.
Paul KNOWS and TELLS us that our physical bodies are going to be dissolved, disintegrated.
Christ TOLD us that his physical body was going to be destroyed, dissolved, disintegrated and a new physical body, a new temple, the church, was going to be raised up and inhabited by his spirit, his spiritual body.
You and your experts have it dead wrong Ethan and the sooner you stop reading them and start reading the bible the sooner you'll realize this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.