Jesus wedding shower on abc tonight

[Voter]

Originally Posted by Mulan

There is substantial disagreement that any of the disciples contributed to the gospels. What if the writer of the later story about flying reindeer was NOT a student of Santa, but an interested party that was sure he could fly and didn't think it mattered much how.

There are plenty of reasons that followers of Christ would have wanted him to live again. You only have to look Elvis sightings to see the same type of effect.

No, you missed the point.

Luke was a student of Paul. In his gospel and Acts, Luke portrays a physical resurrection.

In your analogy, writer 1 mentions flight, but doesn't specifically mention reindeer. Writer 2, writing later, does. You point out that we can't assume that writer 1 was necessarily referring to flight by reindeer.

I agree, so far as it goes. But, there's more to the story. Writer 2 was writer 1's student. Knowing this, it is logical to conclude that writer 1 was referring to reindeer. We would need strong evidence to conclude otherwise.

[Sunny]

No Mulan, I think you have difficulty believing what he says is literal. I see how it can sound like a ghost appearance. In fact, even the disciples that saw them felt that way. Thomas, one of the disciples, even demanded that unless he sees Jesus in person, touch his wounds and sees him eat, he wouldn't believe it. And when Jesus appeared later, he said to Thomas, look, shake my hand, see, I'm eating, would you believe now. And Jesus did that with many people, frying fish and everything and eat with them.

Goodness, I didn't think I'd get into this. And CubedBee, I'm not being snobbish to say this, but it REALLY is a NOBRAINER, and a MUST, all Christians really do believe in the resurrection. In fact, the Bible says anyone who denies it is not a Christian.

But it's painstaking right now just to even state this. I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's just a fact. It's like, do you need actuarial exams to be an actuary, kind of thing. ..

[Voter]

Originally Posted by Todd

Mulan,

Can you clarify which point of Paul's doesn't square with the Gospels?

Yes, that would be helpful. Bee portrays me as just saying 'nuh-uh.' IMO I've been supporting my points as well as any, and better than most.

[Voter]

Originally Posted by Supersonic

But it's painstaking right now just to even state this. I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's just a fact. It's like, do you need actuarial exams to be an actuary, kind of thing. ..

I was also considering making that analogy.

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Voter

Yes, that would be helpful. Bee portrays me as just saying 'nuh-uh.' IMO I've been supporting my points as well as any, and better than most.

I think Bee just thinks that Christians are dogmatic and don't think and are afraid that if anyone raises a point contrary to what Christians are "brainwashed" to have to believe then they're doomed or something.

I really didn't think I'd get into this but, I'm totally a free thinking person,and I think more than most I know. And I think Mulan is thinking for herself too and is raising some good points. Bee seems to be just attacking.

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by Voter

No, you missed the point.

Luke was a student of Paul. In his gospel and Acts, Luke portrays a physical resurrection.

Please cite source that Luke was Paul's student. My sources do not tell me this.

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by Mulan

Please cite source that Luke was Paul's student. My sources do not tell me this.

I'm not sure that the Bible says that Luke was a student of Paul, though I think it was probable. Luke (the writer of Luke and Acts) did travel with Paul on one of his missionary journeys (2 Tim 4:11, also Col 4:14). Luke also documented much that went on during this missionary journey in Acts. I think it is reasonable that the two guys would have compared notes during the extended time that they spent together.

[cubedbee]

I've just sick of people arguing in circles and not understanding what the other side is trying to argue. And yes, many Christians are dogmatic and don't like to look at the Bible from a critical viewpoint. I myself am a Christian. I believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. However, I think one could still be a Christian and believe in a spirtitual resurrection.

All of Corinthians 15 is about resurrection. In speaking of our own future resurrection, Paul's language in verses 35-50 certainly can be interpreted as a spiritual, not physical resurrection. Our resurrected bodies will be imperishable, full of glory, and spiritual. He says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven. He likens our physical bodies to a seed, which when you plant it has a totally different form than when it grows. While you can't conclusively say that our future resurrection is not physical, you certainly can't rule it out by this pasage.

Now, if our resurrection will be spiritual, and Christ's resurrection is intertwined with ours in verses 14-18, then couldn't his resurrection have been physical as well? The traditional Christian answer is "No, the gospels say differently" If you believe in the innerancy of the Bible, then the argument is over. If you don't, then you have to look at it as Mulan is.

Paul's letters were written first, and many of them, including Corinthians, can be confidently said to have been written by the actual historical Apostle Paul in the 40s or 50s. The Gospels are universally accepted as being written later than these laters. How much later is debated. None of the Gospels are accepted as being written by the person they are named after by serious scholars. Anyone who's read the words of both Paul and Jesus can't help but see the difference in focus. These differences aren't irreconcilable, but they are definitively there. Paul was preaching Christ in a much different way that the authors of the gospels.

What this all goes back to is that the phyisical resurection may have been a later embellishment. Could Christ not have conquered death through a spiritual resurection? Could he not still manifested himselves to his followers as a spiritual presence? We have no problem believing the other members of the Trinity can do so.

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by CubedBee

None of the Gospels are accepted as being written by the person they are named after by serious scholars. Anyone who's read the words of both Paul and Jesus can't help but see the difference in focus. These differences aren't irreconcilable, but they are definitively there. Paul was preaching Christ in a much different way that the authors of the gospels.

What this all goes back to is that the phyisical resurection may have been a later embellishment. Could Christ not have conquered death through a spiritual resurection? Could he not still manifested himselves to his followers as a spiritual presence? We have no problem believing the other members of the Trinity can do so.

What!?!? :o Cubed Bee, I totally disagree with ya there. Boy I gotta go and study. I'm not sure if I get quite what you're saying, it's kinda confusing. I do know I disagree with ya with what I've quoted. And I do know the biblical Greek and have been quite "in the books" for more than a dozens years about the Bible and the Scriptures. (Even if I seem like a "California dude" type.) What you said sounds quite confusing to me.

[Voter]

All of Corinthians 15 is about resurrection. In speaking of our own future resurrection, Paul's language in verses 35-50 certainly can be interpreted as a spiritual, not physical resurrection. Our resurrected bodies will be imperishable, full of glory, and spiritual. He says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven. He likens our physical bodies to a seed, which when you plant it has a totally different form than when it grows. While you can't conclusively say that our future resurrection is not physical, you certainly can't rule it out by this pasage.

Paul says that our bodies will be changed from one form to another - but we will still have bodies. This agrees with the gospels. Christ is shown to still have a spear wound in his side, but he is not bleeding to death. So, he has a physical body, but not flesh and blood as we know it now.

All of Corinthians 15 is about resurrection. In speaking of our own future resurrection, Paul's language in verses 35-50 certainly can be interpreted as a spiritual, not physical resurrection. Our resurrected bodies will be imperishable, full of glory, and spiritual. He says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven. He likens our physical bodies to a seed, which when you plant it has a totally different form than when it grows. While you can't conclusively say that our future resurrection is not physical, you certainly can't rule it out by this pasage.

So, if one had nothing to go on but 1 Corinthians, it would be understandable if they concluded that the resurrection was spiritual. Or, they could reasonably conclude that it was physical.

But, Spong had the entire Bible to go by, so he is without excuse.

None of the Gospels are accepted as being written by the person they are named after by serious scholars.

Whoa there. My ESV attributes the gospels to the people they are named after. Are you saying that none of the people who worked on the ESV are serious scholars? Mulan, let's see a charge of arrogance here, please!

What this all goes back to is that the phyisical resurection may have been a later embellishment. Could Christ not have conquered death through a spiritual resurection? Could he not still manifested himselves to his followers as a spiritual presence?

All the positive Biblical evidence says that Christ was raised physically.