The Kingdom of God
Comments
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Just my opinion, but if Dave wants to think that for some reason Jesus' body was not a normal human body, let him have it. My bigger concern is that he doesn't think Jesus was the Word made flesh--but that Jesus was made of some other alien substance.The difference is in the term "Corruption" also translated "decay". It is a direct result of sin. The wages of sin is death. But Peter says:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
Without blemish and spot which has nothing to do with whether or not his body had the capacity to decay.
Was Jesus 100% human or not? You can't have it both ways Dave.
The creeds say Jesus was fully human as far as his nature. But His Spirit was God, not human. If he was fully man and fully God he would have two persons instead of one.
Flesh is not the same as spirit. His flesh was fully human and had the capacity to decompose. He did not have to sin for cells and tissue to decompose once dead. Where you get that from I will never know.> @Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
For the last time DECAY DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! Is a funeral immediately after death today? No. Is that body showing any sign of decay? NO.
Only sinful flesh can decompose. Jesus was sinless. Also he was the incorruptible Word of God who became Flesh (the likeness of sinful flesh). You are robbing God of his glory to attribute the miraculous nature of his death, burial, and resurrection to the blind forces of nature.
Show me in Scripture that only sinful flesh can decompose. You won't find it. It's not there. I am not robbing God of his glory. He set aside his glory when he came to earth.
If David died of old age and his body decayed, why would Peter and Paul use this in contrast saying it was not the case with Jesus' body? But you say that it was? You are not preaching the same gospel they preached if you teach the only thing keeping Jesus body from decay was the brief time God allowed it to rot.
The contrast was that Jesus was raised from the dead and David was not. David decayed because he was never raised. Jesus body did not decay because he was raised in a short period of time.
That is not a different Gospel, that is exactly what Scripture says. You are the only one reading things into it.
The contrast is not that David will be raised from dead as Christ was. No contrast here. The contrast is in the fact that David's body decayed and Jesus' body did not.
Yes, but David was dead long enough to decay. I don't know why this is such a sticking point for you.
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
You are quite the inventor!
If you think Jesus's body was subject to decay in the tomb, you preach a different gospel than Peter and Paul who both said he "didn't see decay", let alone experience.
We aren't preaching a different Gospel. You are inventing a myth. His body can have the capacity to decay yet not see decay because he rose from the dead. That fully synthesizes with what Peter and Paul both say as well as the Psalms.
@Dave_L said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)How can Jesus' blood not be considered not among "corruptible" things, if the only thing that kept it from corruption was time? Time is what causes corruption.
You suggest God pulled his body out of the tomb before it had a chance to rot too much. But we know decay sets in at the moment of death. And Lazarus emitted a profuse odor that made resurrecting him from the tomb on the 4th day, at least questionable by those who loved him.
BODY DECOMPOSITION TIMELINE
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
Here is a problem with this Dave. There is a difference between decomposition and decay first of all.
Second, what happened to the blood of Christ that was spilled? The flesh that was torn from his back? Did it magically stay preserved where it lay? Can we find that tissue and that blood and say we have found a piece of Christ? No, we cannot. Why? It decomposed and decayed.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that says Christ's body did not have the capacity to decay. I want you to show me one verse that says that. You will not find it. I have asked for it several times and you point to confessions, you point to commentaries, you point to verses that have nothing to do with the question. But not once have you showed a single verse that says Jesus' body did not have the capacity of decay.
That being said, with relation to the website you posted. That is an unattended body with no embalming at all. If you attend a funeral, chances are that person has been dead for a minimum of three days. Is that body decomposing before your eyes? Is it decaying? Is there liquid coming from its mouth and nose? No. Why? It wasn't an unattended death. The body was cared for. The same was true for Christ.
Please answer my points and don't just say "But Peter says..." Because Peter does not say what you say. You need to find something else.
So your final position is: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh? And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb?
Are you going to actually address my points and provide Scripture that counters those points? Or are you just going to keep saying the same thing without any Biblical backing?
I've addressed your views with scripture several times. I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb. According to all that you've said so far.
And this provides a different gospel from what Paul and Peter preached.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Just my opinion, but if Dave wants to think that for some reason Jesus' body was not a normal human body, let him have it. My bigger concern is that he doesn't think Jesus was the Word made flesh--but that Jesus was made of some other alien substance.The difference is in the term "Corruption" also translated "decay". It is a direct result of sin. The wages of sin is death. But Peter says:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
Without blemish and spot which has nothing to do with whether or not his body had the capacity to decay.
Was Jesus 100% human or not? You can't have it both ways Dave.
The creeds say Jesus was fully human as far as his nature. But His Spirit was God, not human. If he was fully man and fully God he would have two persons instead of one.
Flesh is not the same as spirit. His flesh was fully human and had the capacity to decompose. He did not have to sin for cells and tissue to decompose once dead. Where you get that from I will never know.> @Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
For the last time DECAY DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! Is a funeral immediately after death today? No. Is that body showing any sign of decay? NO.
Only sinful flesh can decompose. Jesus was sinless. Also he was the incorruptible Word of God who became Flesh (the likeness of sinful flesh). You are robbing God of his glory to attribute the miraculous nature of his death, burial, and resurrection to the blind forces of nature.
Show me in Scripture that only sinful flesh can decompose. You won't find it. It's not there. I am not robbing God of his glory. He set aside his glory when he came to earth.
If David died of old age and his body decayed, why would Peter and Paul use this in contrast saying it was not the case with Jesus' body? But you say that it was? You are not preaching the same gospel they preached if you teach the only thing keeping Jesus body from decay was the brief time God allowed it to rot.
The contrast was that Jesus was raised from the dead and David was not. David decayed because he was never raised. Jesus body did not decay because he was raised in a short period of time.
That is not a different Gospel, that is exactly what Scripture says. You are the only one reading things into it.
The contrast is not that David will be raised from dead as Christ was. No contrast here. The contrast is in the fact that David's body decayed and Jesus' body did not.
Yes, but David was dead long enough to decay. I don't know why this is such a sticking point for you.
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
You are quite the inventor!
If you think Jesus's body was subject to decay in the tomb, you preach a different gospel than Peter and Paul who both said he "didn't see decay", let alone experience.
We aren't preaching a different Gospel. You are inventing a myth. His body can have the capacity to decay yet not see decay because he rose from the dead. That fully synthesizes with what Peter and Paul both say as well as the Psalms.
@Dave_L said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)How can Jesus' blood not be considered not among "corruptible" things, if the only thing that kept it from corruption was time? Time is what causes corruption.
You suggest God pulled his body out of the tomb before it had a chance to rot too much. But we know decay sets in at the moment of death. And Lazarus emitted a profuse odor that made resurrecting him from the tomb on the 4th day, at least questionable by those who loved him.
BODY DECOMPOSITION TIMELINE
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
Here is a problem with this Dave. There is a difference between decomposition and decay first of all.
Second, what happened to the blood of Christ that was spilled? The flesh that was torn from his back? Did it magically stay preserved where it lay? Can we find that tissue and that blood and say we have found a piece of Christ? No, we cannot. Why? It decomposed and decayed.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that says Christ's body did not have the capacity to decay. I want you to show me one verse that says that. You will not find it. I have asked for it several times and you point to confessions, you point to commentaries, you point to verses that have nothing to do with the question. But not once have you showed a single verse that says Jesus' body did not have the capacity of decay.
That being said, with relation to the website you posted. That is an unattended body with no embalming at all. If you attend a funeral, chances are that person has been dead for a minimum of three days. Is that body decomposing before your eyes? Is it decaying? Is there liquid coming from its mouth and nose? No. Why? It wasn't an unattended death. The body was cared for. The same was true for Christ.
Please answer my points and don't just say "But Peter says..." Because Peter does not say what you say. You need to find something else.
So your final position is: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh? And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb?
Are you going to actually address my points and provide Scripture that counters those points? Or are you just going to keep saying the same thing without any Biblical backing?
Your position is as described: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb.
Peter and Paul preach a different gospel.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Just my opinion, but if Dave wants to think that for some reason Jesus' body was not a normal human body, let him have it. My bigger concern is that he doesn't think Jesus was the Word made flesh--but that Jesus was made of some other alien substance.The difference is in the term "Corruption" also translated "decay". It is a direct result of sin. The wages of sin is death. But Peter says:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
Without blemish and spot which has nothing to do with whether or not his body had the capacity to decay.
Was Jesus 100% human or not? You can't have it both ways Dave.
The creeds say Jesus was fully human as far as his nature. But His Spirit was God, not human. If he was fully man and fully God he would have two persons instead of one.
Flesh is not the same as spirit. His flesh was fully human and had the capacity to decompose. He did not have to sin for cells and tissue to decompose once dead. Where you get that from I will never know.> @Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
For the last time DECAY DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! Is a funeral immediately after death today? No. Is that body showing any sign of decay? NO.
Only sinful flesh can decompose. Jesus was sinless. Also he was the incorruptible Word of God who became Flesh (the likeness of sinful flesh). You are robbing God of his glory to attribute the miraculous nature of his death, burial, and resurrection to the blind forces of nature.
Show me in Scripture that only sinful flesh can decompose. You won't find it. It's not there. I am not robbing God of his glory. He set aside his glory when he came to earth.
If David died of old age and his body decayed, why would Peter and Paul use this in contrast saying it was not the case with Jesus' body? But you say that it was? You are not preaching the same gospel they preached if you teach the only thing keeping Jesus body from decay was the brief time God allowed it to rot.
The contrast was that Jesus was raised from the dead and David was not. David decayed because he was never raised. Jesus body did not decay because he was raised in a short period of time.
That is not a different Gospel, that is exactly what Scripture says. You are the only one reading things into it.
The contrast is not that David will be raised from dead as Christ was. No contrast here. The contrast is in the fact that David's body decayed and Jesus' body did not.
Yes, but David was dead long enough to decay. I don't know why this is such a sticking point for you.
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
You are quite the inventor!
If you think Jesus's body was subject to decay in the tomb, you preach a different gospel than Peter and Paul who both said he "didn't see decay", let alone experience.
We aren't preaching a different Gospel. You are inventing a myth. His body can have the capacity to decay yet not see decay because he rose from the dead. That fully synthesizes with what Peter and Paul both say as well as the Psalms.
@Dave_L said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)How can Jesus' blood not be considered not among "corruptible" things, if the only thing that kept it from corruption was time? Time is what causes corruption.
You suggest God pulled his body out of the tomb before it had a chance to rot too much. But we know decay sets in at the moment of death. And Lazarus emitted a profuse odor that made resurrecting him from the tomb on the 4th day, at least questionable by those who loved him.
BODY DECOMPOSITION TIMELINE
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
Here is a problem with this Dave. There is a difference between decomposition and decay first of all.
Second, what happened to the blood of Christ that was spilled? The flesh that was torn from his back? Did it magically stay preserved where it lay? Can we find that tissue and that blood and say we have found a piece of Christ? No, we cannot. Why? It decomposed and decayed.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that says Christ's body did not have the capacity to decay. I want you to show me one verse that says that. You will not find it. I have asked for it several times and you point to confessions, you point to commentaries, you point to verses that have nothing to do with the question. But not once have you showed a single verse that says Jesus' body did not have the capacity of decay.
That being said, with relation to the website you posted. That is an unattended body with no embalming at all. If you attend a funeral, chances are that person has been dead for a minimum of three days. Is that body decomposing before your eyes? Is it decaying? Is there liquid coming from its mouth and nose? No. Why? It wasn't an unattended death. The body was cared for. The same was true for Christ.
Please answer my points and don't just say "But Peter says..." Because Peter does not say what you say. You need to find something else.
So your final position is: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh? And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb?
Are you going to actually address my points and provide Scripture that counters those points? Or are you just going to keep saying the same thing without any Biblical backing?
I've addressed your views with scripture several times. I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb. According to all that you've said so far.
And this provides a different gospel from what Paul and Peter preached.
Ok, you refuse to answer my post. That makes your position abundantly clear that you do not wish to actually engage Scripture, take things out of context, and have no Biblical basis for your position.
Good day.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Just my opinion, but if Dave wants to think that for some reason Jesus' body was not a normal human body, let him have it. My bigger concern is that he doesn't think Jesus was the Word made flesh--but that Jesus was made of some other alien substance.The difference is in the term "Corruption" also translated "decay". It is a direct result of sin. The wages of sin is death. But Peter says:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
Without blemish and spot which has nothing to do with whether or not his body had the capacity to decay.
Was Jesus 100% human or not? You can't have it both ways Dave.
The creeds say Jesus was fully human as far as his nature. But His Spirit was God, not human. If he was fully man and fully God he would have two persons instead of one.
Flesh is not the same as spirit. His flesh was fully human and had the capacity to decompose. He did not have to sin for cells and tissue to decompose once dead. Where you get that from I will never know.> @Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
For the last time DECAY DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! Is a funeral immediately after death today? No. Is that body showing any sign of decay? NO.
Only sinful flesh can decompose. Jesus was sinless. Also he was the incorruptible Word of God who became Flesh (the likeness of sinful flesh). You are robbing God of his glory to attribute the miraculous nature of his death, burial, and resurrection to the blind forces of nature.
Show me in Scripture that only sinful flesh can decompose. You won't find it. It's not there. I am not robbing God of his glory. He set aside his glory when he came to earth.
If David died of old age and his body decayed, why would Peter and Paul use this in contrast saying it was not the case with Jesus' body? But you say that it was? You are not preaching the same gospel they preached if you teach the only thing keeping Jesus body from decay was the brief time God allowed it to rot.
The contrast was that Jesus was raised from the dead and David was not. David decayed because he was never raised. Jesus body did not decay because he was raised in a short period of time.
That is not a different Gospel, that is exactly what Scripture says. You are the only one reading things into it.
The contrast is not that David will be raised from dead as Christ was. No contrast here. The contrast is in the fact that David's body decayed and Jesus' body did not.
Yes, but David was dead long enough to decay. I don't know why this is such a sticking point for you.
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
You are quite the inventor!
If you think Jesus's body was subject to decay in the tomb, you preach a different gospel than Peter and Paul who both said he "didn't see decay", let alone experience.
We aren't preaching a different Gospel. You are inventing a myth. His body can have the capacity to decay yet not see decay because he rose from the dead. That fully synthesizes with what Peter and Paul both say as well as the Psalms.
@Dave_L said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)How can Jesus' blood not be considered not among "corruptible" things, if the only thing that kept it from corruption was time? Time is what causes corruption.
You suggest God pulled his body out of the tomb before it had a chance to rot too much. But we know decay sets in at the moment of death. And Lazarus emitted a profuse odor that made resurrecting him from the tomb on the 4th day, at least questionable by those who loved him.
BODY DECOMPOSITION TIMELINE
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
Here is a problem with this Dave. There is a difference between decomposition and decay first of all.
Second, what happened to the blood of Christ that was spilled? The flesh that was torn from his back? Did it magically stay preserved where it lay? Can we find that tissue and that blood and say we have found a piece of Christ? No, we cannot. Why? It decomposed and decayed.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that says Christ's body did not have the capacity to decay. I want you to show me one verse that says that. You will not find it. I have asked for it several times and you point to confessions, you point to commentaries, you point to verses that have nothing to do with the question. But not once have you showed a single verse that says Jesus' body did not have the capacity of decay.
That being said, with relation to the website you posted. That is an unattended body with no embalming at all. If you attend a funeral, chances are that person has been dead for a minimum of three days. Is that body decomposing before your eyes? Is it decaying? Is there liquid coming from its mouth and nose? No. Why? It wasn't an unattended death. The body was cared for. The same was true for Christ.
Please answer my points and don't just say "But Peter says..." Because Peter does not say what you say. You need to find something else.
So your final position is: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh? And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb?
Are you going to actually address my points and provide Scripture that counters those points? Or are you just going to keep saying the same thing without any Biblical backing?
I've addressed your views with scripture several times. I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb. According to all that you've said so far.
And this provides a different gospel from what Paul and Peter preached.
Ok, you refuse to answer my post. That makes your position abundantly clear that you do not wish to actually engage Scripture, take things out of context, and have no Biblical basis for your position.
Good day.
I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb.
This summarizes your position regardless of how many times and ways I've refuted it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Just my opinion, but if Dave wants to think that for some reason Jesus' body was not a normal human body, let him have it. My bigger concern is that he doesn't think Jesus was the Word made flesh--but that Jesus was made of some other alien substance.The difference is in the term "Corruption" also translated "decay". It is a direct result of sin. The wages of sin is death. But Peter says:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
Without blemish and spot which has nothing to do with whether or not his body had the capacity to decay.
Was Jesus 100% human or not? You can't have it both ways Dave.
The creeds say Jesus was fully human as far as his nature. But His Spirit was God, not human. If he was fully man and fully God he would have two persons instead of one.
Flesh is not the same as spirit. His flesh was fully human and had the capacity to decompose. He did not have to sin for cells and tissue to decompose once dead. Where you get that from I will never know.> @Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
For the last time DECAY DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! Is a funeral immediately after death today? No. Is that body showing any sign of decay? NO.
Only sinful flesh can decompose. Jesus was sinless. Also he was the incorruptible Word of God who became Flesh (the likeness of sinful flesh). You are robbing God of his glory to attribute the miraculous nature of his death, burial, and resurrection to the blind forces of nature.
Show me in Scripture that only sinful flesh can decompose. You won't find it. It's not there. I am not robbing God of his glory. He set aside his glory when he came to earth.
If David died of old age and his body decayed, why would Peter and Paul use this in contrast saying it was not the case with Jesus' body? But you say that it was? You are not preaching the same gospel they preached if you teach the only thing keeping Jesus body from decay was the brief time God allowed it to rot.
The contrast was that Jesus was raised from the dead and David was not. David decayed because he was never raised. Jesus body did not decay because he was raised in a short period of time.
That is not a different Gospel, that is exactly what Scripture says. You are the only one reading things into it.
The contrast is not that David will be raised from dead as Christ was. No contrast here. The contrast is in the fact that David's body decayed and Jesus' body did not.
Yes, but David was dead long enough to decay. I don't know why this is such a sticking point for you.
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
You are quite the inventor!
If you think Jesus's body was subject to decay in the tomb, you preach a different gospel than Peter and Paul who both said he "didn't see decay", let alone experience.
We aren't preaching a different Gospel. You are inventing a myth. His body can have the capacity to decay yet not see decay because he rose from the dead. That fully synthesizes with what Peter and Paul both say as well as the Psalms.
@Dave_L said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)How can Jesus' blood not be considered not among "corruptible" things, if the only thing that kept it from corruption was time? Time is what causes corruption.
You suggest God pulled his body out of the tomb before it had a chance to rot too much. But we know decay sets in at the moment of death. And Lazarus emitted a profuse odor that made resurrecting him from the tomb on the 4th day, at least questionable by those who loved him.
BODY DECOMPOSITION TIMELINE
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
Here is a problem with this Dave. There is a difference between decomposition and decay first of all.
Second, what happened to the blood of Christ that was spilled? The flesh that was torn from his back? Did it magically stay preserved where it lay? Can we find that tissue and that blood and say we have found a piece of Christ? No, we cannot. Why? It decomposed and decayed.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that says Christ's body did not have the capacity to decay. I want you to show me one verse that says that. You will not find it. I have asked for it several times and you point to confessions, you point to commentaries, you point to verses that have nothing to do with the question. But not once have you showed a single verse that says Jesus' body did not have the capacity of decay.
That being said, with relation to the website you posted. That is an unattended body with no embalming at all. If you attend a funeral, chances are that person has been dead for a minimum of three days. Is that body decomposing before your eyes? Is it decaying? Is there liquid coming from its mouth and nose? No. Why? It wasn't an unattended death. The body was cared for. The same was true for Christ.
Please answer my points and don't just say "But Peter says..." Because Peter does not say what you say. You need to find something else.
So your final position is: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh? And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb?
Are you going to actually address my points and provide Scripture that counters those points? Or are you just going to keep saying the same thing without any Biblical backing?
I've addressed your views with scripture several times. I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb. According to all that you've said so far.
And this provides a different gospel from what Paul and Peter preached.
Ok, you refuse to answer my post. That makes your position abundantly clear that you do not wish to actually engage Scripture, take things out of context, and have no Biblical basis for your position.
Good day.
I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb.
This summarizes your position regardless of how many times and ways I've refuted it.
The problem Dave, is you have not provided any actual evidence for your claim. You merely shout it repeatedly and expect us to accept it as truth.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Just my opinion, but if Dave wants to think that for some reason Jesus' body was not a normal human body, let him have it. My bigger concern is that he doesn't think Jesus was the Word made flesh--but that Jesus was made of some other alien substance.The difference is in the term "Corruption" also translated "decay". It is a direct result of sin. The wages of sin is death. But Peter says:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
Without blemish and spot which has nothing to do with whether or not his body had the capacity to decay.
Was Jesus 100% human or not? You can't have it both ways Dave.
The creeds say Jesus was fully human as far as his nature. But His Spirit was God, not human. If he was fully man and fully God he would have two persons instead of one.
Flesh is not the same as spirit. His flesh was fully human and had the capacity to decompose. He did not have to sin for cells and tissue to decompose once dead. Where you get that from I will never know.> @Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
For the last time DECAY DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! Is a funeral immediately after death today? No. Is that body showing any sign of decay? NO.
Only sinful flesh can decompose. Jesus was sinless. Also he was the incorruptible Word of God who became Flesh (the likeness of sinful flesh). You are robbing God of his glory to attribute the miraculous nature of his death, burial, and resurrection to the blind forces of nature.
Show me in Scripture that only sinful flesh can decompose. You won't find it. It's not there. I am not robbing God of his glory. He set aside his glory when he came to earth.
If David died of old age and his body decayed, why would Peter and Paul use this in contrast saying it was not the case with Jesus' body? But you say that it was? You are not preaching the same gospel they preached if you teach the only thing keeping Jesus body from decay was the brief time God allowed it to rot.
The contrast was that Jesus was raised from the dead and David was not. David decayed because he was never raised. Jesus body did not decay because he was raised in a short period of time.
That is not a different Gospel, that is exactly what Scripture says. You are the only one reading things into it.
The contrast is not that David will be raised from dead as Christ was. No contrast here. The contrast is in the fact that David's body decayed and Jesus' body did not.
Yes, but David was dead long enough to decay. I don't know why this is such a sticking point for you.
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
You are quite the inventor!
If you think Jesus's body was subject to decay in the tomb, you preach a different gospel than Peter and Paul who both said he "didn't see decay", let alone experience.
We aren't preaching a different Gospel. You are inventing a myth. His body can have the capacity to decay yet not see decay because he rose from the dead. That fully synthesizes with what Peter and Paul both say as well as the Psalms.
@Dave_L said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)How can Jesus' blood not be considered not among "corruptible" things, if the only thing that kept it from corruption was time? Time is what causes corruption.
You suggest God pulled his body out of the tomb before it had a chance to rot too much. But we know decay sets in at the moment of death. And Lazarus emitted a profuse odor that made resurrecting him from the tomb on the 4th day, at least questionable by those who loved him.
BODY DECOMPOSITION TIMELINE
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
Here is a problem with this Dave. There is a difference between decomposition and decay first of all.
Second, what happened to the blood of Christ that was spilled? The flesh that was torn from his back? Did it magically stay preserved where it lay? Can we find that tissue and that blood and say we have found a piece of Christ? No, we cannot. Why? It decomposed and decayed.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that says Christ's body did not have the capacity to decay. I want you to show me one verse that says that. You will not find it. I have asked for it several times and you point to confessions, you point to commentaries, you point to verses that have nothing to do with the question. But not once have you showed a single verse that says Jesus' body did not have the capacity of decay.
That being said, with relation to the website you posted. That is an unattended body with no embalming at all. If you attend a funeral, chances are that person has been dead for a minimum of three days. Is that body decomposing before your eyes? Is it decaying? Is there liquid coming from its mouth and nose? No. Why? It wasn't an unattended death. The body was cared for. The same was true for Christ.
Please answer my points and don't just say "But Peter says..." Because Peter does not say what you say. You need to find something else.
So your final position is: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh? And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb?
Are you going to actually address my points and provide Scripture that counters those points? Or are you just going to keep saying the same thing without any Biblical backing?
I've addressed your views with scripture several times. I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb. According to all that you've said so far.
And this provides a different gospel from what Paul and Peter preached.
Ok, you refuse to answer my post. That makes your position abundantly clear that you do not wish to actually engage Scripture, take things out of context, and have no Biblical basis for your position.
Good day.
I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb.
This summarizes your position regardless of how many times and ways I've refuted it.
The problem Dave, is you have not provided any actual evidence for your claim. You merely shout it repeatedly and expect us to accept it as truth.
Your position is self refuting. You believe the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Just my opinion, but if Dave wants to think that for some reason Jesus' body was not a normal human body, let him have it. My bigger concern is that he doesn't think Jesus was the Word made flesh--but that Jesus was made of some other alien substance.The difference is in the term "Corruption" also translated "decay". It is a direct result of sin. The wages of sin is death. But Peter says:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
Without blemish and spot which has nothing to do with whether or not his body had the capacity to decay.
Was Jesus 100% human or not? You can't have it both ways Dave.
The creeds say Jesus was fully human as far as his nature. But His Spirit was God, not human. If he was fully man and fully God he would have two persons instead of one.
Flesh is not the same as spirit. His flesh was fully human and had the capacity to decompose. He did not have to sin for cells and tissue to decompose once dead. Where you get that from I will never know.> @Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
For the last time DECAY DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY! Is a funeral immediately after death today? No. Is that body showing any sign of decay? NO.
Only sinful flesh can decompose. Jesus was sinless. Also he was the incorruptible Word of God who became Flesh (the likeness of sinful flesh). You are robbing God of his glory to attribute the miraculous nature of his death, burial, and resurrection to the blind forces of nature.
Show me in Scripture that only sinful flesh can decompose. You won't find it. It's not there. I am not robbing God of his glory. He set aside his glory when he came to earth.
If David died of old age and his body decayed, why would Peter and Paul use this in contrast saying it was not the case with Jesus' body? But you say that it was? You are not preaching the same gospel they preached if you teach the only thing keeping Jesus body from decay was the brief time God allowed it to rot.
The contrast was that Jesus was raised from the dead and David was not. David decayed because he was never raised. Jesus body did not decay because he was raised in a short period of time.
That is not a different Gospel, that is exactly what Scripture says. You are the only one reading things into it.
The contrast is not that David will be raised from dead as Christ was. No contrast here. The contrast is in the fact that David's body decayed and Jesus' body did not.
Yes, but David was dead long enough to decay. I don't know why this is such a sticking point for you.
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
That passage you quote from the Bible is really is clear about what Peter actually meant. It certainly throws your theory on its head.
The gospel includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. But you are discounting the value of his burial suggesting he was subject to the same decay any sinner who dies of old age is. And you follow by suggesting God limited the decay to 3 days and nights using the resurrection. But Peter and Paul said his burial did not include decay, using David's death and decay from old age as a point of comparison.
You are quite the inventor!
If you think Jesus's body was subject to decay in the tomb, you preach a different gospel than Peter and Paul who both said he "didn't see decay", let alone experience.
We aren't preaching a different Gospel. You are inventing a myth. His body can have the capacity to decay yet not see decay because he rose from the dead. That fully synthesizes with what Peter and Paul both say as well as the Psalms.
@Dave_L said:
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)How can Jesus' blood not be considered not among "corruptible" things, if the only thing that kept it from corruption was time? Time is what causes corruption.
You suggest God pulled his body out of the tomb before it had a chance to rot too much. But we know decay sets in at the moment of death. And Lazarus emitted a profuse odor that made resurrecting him from the tomb on the 4th day, at least questionable by those who loved him.
BODY DECOMPOSITION TIMELINE
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.
8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.
Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.
1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.
Here is a problem with this Dave. There is a difference between decomposition and decay first of all.
Second, what happened to the blood of Christ that was spilled? The flesh that was torn from his back? Did it magically stay preserved where it lay? Can we find that tissue and that blood and say we have found a piece of Christ? No, we cannot. Why? It decomposed and decayed.
There is NOTHING in Scripture that says Christ's body did not have the capacity to decay. I want you to show me one verse that says that. You will not find it. I have asked for it several times and you point to confessions, you point to commentaries, you point to verses that have nothing to do with the question. But not once have you showed a single verse that says Jesus' body did not have the capacity of decay.
That being said, with relation to the website you posted. That is an unattended body with no embalming at all. If you attend a funeral, chances are that person has been dead for a minimum of three days. Is that body decomposing before your eyes? Is it decaying? Is there liquid coming from its mouth and nose? No. Why? It wasn't an unattended death. The body was cared for. The same was true for Christ.
Please answer my points and don't just say "But Peter says..." Because Peter does not say what you say. You need to find something else.
So your final position is: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh? And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb?
Are you going to actually address my points and provide Scripture that counters those points? Or are you just going to keep saying the same thing without any Biblical backing?
I've addressed your views with scripture several times. I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb. According to all that you've said so far.
And this provides a different gospel from what Paul and Peter preached.
Ok, you refuse to answer my post. That makes your position abundantly clear that you do not wish to actually engage Scripture, take things out of context, and have no Biblical basis for your position.
Good day.
I'm only summing up your position as being: the incorruptible Word of God became corruptible flesh. And the incorruptible blood of Christ on the cross became corruptible in the tomb.
This summarizes your position regardless of how many times and ways I've refuted it.
The problem Dave, is you have not provided any actual evidence for your claim. You merely shout it repeatedly and expect us to accept it as truth.
Your position is self refuting. You believe the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
Dave you are getting annoying. Let's take this one by one. I'm going to ask one question per post and I expect you to answer it.
Question: Name one verse that says that Jesus' body was not capable of decay. This is not saying that he did see decay, he didn't, but a verse that shows his body was somehow different than everyone else's and he could not decay.
-
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.
But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
-
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ. ...
...this reminds me of the cook who just took all the ingredients to whatever he could find in a kitchen drawer and threw it in the pot, being convinced that it was the right thing to do ...
-
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
And that verse does not say he did not have the capacity to decompose as we have told you time and time again.
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
And that verse does not say he did not have the capacity to decompose as we have told you time and time again.
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?
Peter compares corruptible things that perish with time to the Blood of Christ which is incorruptible.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
And that verse does not say he did not have the capacity to decompose as we have told you time and time again.
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?
Peter compares corruptible things that perish with time to the Blood of Christ which is incorruptible.
You didn't answer my question. Let me quote it for you again and maybe you will actually attempt to answer it this time:
@davidtaylorjr said:
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it? -
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
And that verse does not say he did not have the capacity to decompose as we have told you time and time again.
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?
Peter compares corruptible things that perish with time to the Blood of Christ which is incorruptible.
You didn't answer my question. Let me quote it for you again and maybe you will actually attempt to answer it this time:
@davidtaylorjr said:
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?I cannot answer where scripture is silent on a matter. But scripture is not silent on Jesus' incorruptibility whether alive or in the tomb.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)
PS. you can use this to prove the deity of Christ.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
And that verse does not say he did not have the capacity to decompose as we have told you time and time again.
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?
Peter compares corruptible things that perish with time to the Blood of Christ which is incorruptible.
You didn't answer my question. Let me quote it for you again and maybe you will actually attempt to answer it this time:
@davidtaylorjr said:
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?I cannot answer where scripture is silent on a matter. But scripture is not silent on Jesus' incorruptibility whether alive or in the tomb.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)
PS. you can use this to prove the deity of Christ.
I think you are missing the point of the question. Did that flesh that was ripped off his back decompose or is it theoretically still out there somewhere? Did the blood dry up or is it still flowing somewhere? If they aren't, that blows your theological view out of the water.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
I've already shown that Peter calls the Word of God incorruptible. And John says this [incorruptible] Word became flesh. And that Christ redeemed his elect not with corruptible things that decay with time, but with the Blood of Christ.But you say as I summarized above: the incorruptible Word became corruptible flesh. And you also believe the incorruptible blood of Christ became corruptible in the tomb.
That his body did not suffer corruption for any supernatural reason, but merely because the corruption wasn't allowed to continue one day short of Lazarus' corruption, evidenced by his emitting foul odor.
Your argument is self-refuting.
You have not shown one verse yet that says his body could no have the capacity to decay. Please give a verse that says this is not possible. Quit saying the same thing and actually answer the question.
Peter says the Word is incorruptible. This means it can never become corruptible. This also means that when the Word became flesh, it remained incorruptible.
Secondly Paul says we were redeemed, not by something that becomes corruptible in time, but by Christ's blood. Meaning it, unlike those other corruptible things, cannot be corrupted by time. But you say Jesus' blood was corruptible in time. That time alone meant the difference between rotting somewhat and rotting completely.
Ok so you can't provide a verse. That is all I needed to know. You are going with Dave's theology, not the Bible. Good to know.
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:18–19)
And that verse does not say he did not have the capacity to decompose as we have told you time and time again.
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?
Peter compares corruptible things that perish with time to the Blood of Christ which is incorruptible.
You didn't answer my question. Let me quote it for you again and maybe you will actually attempt to answer it this time:
@davidtaylorjr said:
If you think it does, then where is the flesh that was ripped off Christ's back during flogging? Where is the blood that spilled on the ground? What happened to it?I cannot answer where scripture is silent on a matter. But scripture is not silent on Jesus' incorruptibility whether alive or in the tomb.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)
PS. you can use this to prove the deity of Christ.
I think you are missing the point of the question. Did that flesh that was ripped off his back decompose or is it theoretically still out there somewhere? Did the blood dry up or is it still flowing somewhere? If they aren't, that blows your theological view out of the water.
Did Jesus trim his fingernails? What do you suppose happened to them if he did? I think I gave my opinion about this before. But we have no scripture to spell it out for us. But we can at least confidently say ...He Whom God raised up [to life] saw no corruption [did not experience putrefaction and dissolution of the grave].
Zondervan. (n.d.). Amplified Bible.
-
A focus on untended, probably insignificant linguistic detail that misses the whole point of the difference between David and Jesus. Obviously, the statement can't be taken comepletely literal as has been logically shown over and over. That was never the intent--not even in the Amplified Bible. But, whatever! Camp there if you want.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sharing your insights. I too believe Jesus will never establish a physical Kingdom on this present earth. But his Kingdom is a present reality in Heaven where he sits on David's Throne ruling over the nations of the earth. But, unless a person is Born Again, they cannot grasp it, seeking a kingdom based on sight instead of faith.
The Kingdom will also prevail over the New Heavens and Earth forever when the time comes.
In light of the original OP and a follow-up on the present and future Kingdom, where God's people are citizens; what great hope for the Christian today!
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
The Extent of God's Rule.
The kingdom of God is the realm in which He rules or exercises His dominion. Christ designated the domain of God's authority as “the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 4:17), or “the kingdom of heaven.” (Mark 1: 15.) Territorially, the kingdom of God embraces the universe.
Psalm 103:19-- His kingdom rules over all.
Psalm 103:19 -- All living things belong to God.
Psalm 50:10-12 -- The earth is the Lord's.
Psalm 24:1. -- The earth is the Lord's.
Haggai 2:8 -- The wealth of the world is God's. Potently, however, the actual exercise of God's control within His domain is limited, through the invasion of sin.
Isaiah 1:2,19,20 -- Sin is the rebellion against the authority of God.
Romans 6:16-- Those who commit sin choose another lord.When sin exists God's lordship as King is not recognized. His rule is rejected. The existence of sin in this world means that God does not hold full control in the territory which constitutes His kingdom. This is not because He lacks the power to control but because His love and mercy spares sinners that they might repent and become His loyal subjects. Thus God has voluntarily resigned the full exercise of His rulership and has permitted an evil kingdom, the kingdom of Satan, to exist within His own territory in the hope that those who do not now acknowledge Him as their king will be led to do so because it is forever too late. Truth found truth shared. CM
-
@GaoLu said:
A focus on untended, probably insignificant linguistic detail that misses the whole point of the difference between David and Jesus. Obviously, the statement can't be taken comepletely literal as has been logically shown over and over. That was never the intent--not even in the Amplified Bible. But, whatever! Camp there if you want.Thanks for sharing. But please consider: If Jesus' body did not experience decay as David, Peter and Paul say, for purely naturalistic reasons as you and DT say, then Lazarus' body also remained free from decay for an equal time period. But if the only reason Jesus' body did not decay was in resurrecting it before decay set in. Then why do they say Lazarus' body already stank when Jesus was to raise it on the 4th day?
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sharing your insights. I too believe Jesus will never establish a physical Kingdom on this present earth. But his Kingdom is a present reality in Heaven where he sits on David's Throne ruling over the nations of the earth. But, unless a person is Born Again, they cannot grasp it, seeking a kingdom based on sight instead of faith.
The Kingdom will also prevail over the New Heavens and Earth forever when the time comes.
In light of the original OP and a follow-up on the present and future Kingdom, where God's people are citizens; what great hope for the Christian today!
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
The Extent of God's Rule.
The kingdom of God is the realm in which He rules or exercises His dominion. Christ designated the domain of God's authority as “the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 4:17), or “the kingdom of heaven.” (Mark 1: 15.) Territorially, the kingdom of God embraces the universe.
Psalm 103:19-- His kingdom rules over all.
Psalm 103:19 -- All living things belong to God.
Psalm 50:10-12 -- The earth is the Lord's.
Psalm 24:1. -- The earth is the Lord's.
Haggai 2:8 -- The wealth of the world is God's. Potently, however, the actual exercise of God's control within His domain is limited, through the invasion of sin.
Isaiah 1:2,19,20 -- Sin is the rebellion against the authority of God.
Romans 6:16-- Those who commit sin choose another lord.When sin exists God's lordship as King is not recognized. His rule is rejected. The existence of sin in this world means that God does not hold full control in the territory which constitutes His kingdom. This is not because He lacks the power to control but because His love and mercy spares sinners that they might repent and become His loyal subjects. Thus God has voluntarily resigned the full exercise of His rulership and has permitted an evil kingdom, the kingdom of Satan, to exist within His own territory in the hope that those who do not now acknowledge Him as their king will be led to do so because it is forever too late. Truth found truth shared. CM
Thanks, this is very well put. My view differs only in God using Satan as part of his eternal plan. Just as he used false prophets to thin the herd in OT times.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
@Dave_L said:
Thanks, this is very well put. My view differs only in God using Satan as part of his eternal plan. Just as he used false prophets to thin the herd in OT times.
No, No, No! God doesn't employ Satan to do anything. Christ and Satan are not co-workers or partners. He (God) brings good out of Satan's dealings on behalf of the believers. Please read Romans 8:28ff. God constantly at work for the believer in all things, at all times.
"God can bless any mess, but He doesn't need mess to bless." CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks, this is very well put. My view differs only in God using Satan as part of his eternal plan. Just as he used false prophets to thin the herd in OT times.
No, No, No! God doesn't employ Satan to do anything. Christ and Satan are not co-workers or partners. He (God) brings good out of Satan's dealings on behalf of the believers. Please read Romans 8:28ff. God constantly at work for the believer in all things, at all times.
"God can bless any mess, but He doesn't need mess to bless." CM
Why did God create Satan? Why does he keep him alive? What about God binding Satan in Revelation 20 only to let him loose to deceive the nations? If it is in God's power to bind him, why not just do him in permanently?
Post edited by Dave_L on -
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
A focus on untended, probably insignificant linguistic detail that misses the whole point of the difference between David and Jesus. Obviously, the statement can't be taken comepletely literal as has been logically shown over and over. That was never the intent--not even in the Amplified Bible. But, whatever! Camp there if you want.Thanks for sharing. But please consider: If Jesus' body did not experience decay as David, Peter and Paul say, for purely naturalistic reasons as you and DT say, then Lazarus' body also remained free from decay for an equal time period. But if the only reason Jesus' body did not decay was in resurrecting it before decay set in. Then why do they say Lazarus' body already stank when Jesus was to raise it on the 4th day?
My body stinks at the end of the day if I haven't had a shower and I certainly am not in a state of decay.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
A focus on untended, probably insignificant linguistic detail that misses the whole point of the difference between David and Jesus. Obviously, the statement can't be taken comepletely literal as has been logically shown over and over. That was never the intent--not even in the Amplified Bible. But, whatever! Camp there if you want.Thanks for sharing. But please consider: If Jesus' body did not experience decay as David, Peter and Paul say, for purely naturalistic reasons as you and DT say, then Lazarus' body also remained free from decay for an equal time period. But if the only reason Jesus' body did not decay was in resurrecting it before decay set in. Then why do they say Lazarus' body already stank when Jesus was to raise it on the 4th day?
My body stinks at the end of the day if I haven't had a shower and I certainly am not in a state of decay.
David, Peter and Paul said Jesus' body did not see decay during the 72 hours of entombment. But Lazarus' body obviously did.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
A focus on untended, probably insignificant linguistic detail that misses the whole point of the difference between David and Jesus. Obviously, the statement can't be taken comepletely literal as has been logically shown over and over. That was never the intent--not even in the Amplified Bible. But, whatever! Camp there if you want.Thanks for sharing. But please consider: If Jesus' body did not experience decay as David, Peter and Paul say, for purely naturalistic reasons as you and DT say, then Lazarus' body also remained free from decay for an equal time period. But if the only reason Jesus' body did not decay was in resurrecting it before decay set in. Then why do they say Lazarus' body already stank when Jesus was to raise it on the 4th day?
My body stinks at the end of the day if I haven't had a shower and I certainly am not in a state of decay.
David, Peter and Paul said Jesus' body did not see decay during the 72 hours of entombment. But Lazarus' body obviously did.
According to what?
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sharing.My pleasure.
But please consider: If Jesus' body did not experience decay as David, Peter and Paul say, for purely naturalistic reasons as you and DT say, then Lazarus' body also remained free from decay for an equal time period. But if the only reason Jesus' body did not decay was in resurrecting it before decay set in. Then why do they say Lazarus' body already stank when Jesus was to raise it on the 4th day?
You have my permission to believe anything you want. The point (for the umpteenth time) is that you are barking up the wrong tree. You have treed a ghost that doesn't exist. You have become a slave to the tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the passage.
-
Why did God create Satan? Why does he keep him alive? What about God binding Satan in Revelation 20 only to let him loose to deceive the nations? If it is in God's power to bind him, why not just do him in permanently?
This is where your boxing God inside bad theology has created havock of the Truth. Like Bill, you really ought to start by trusting the Bible just like it is written. If you reject that, you might end up anywhere, but it won't be where you want to go.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
