Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Does Christ have a (now) a Physical body

Expand Messages
  • geoff
    Hi Folks Recently there has been discussion regarding whether Christ has a physical body or not. The FER (and also the JW s for interests sakes) claims he does
    Message 1 of 161 , Jun 1 4:09 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Folks

      Recently there has been discussion regarding whether Christ has a physical body or not.
      The FER (and also the JW's for interests sakes) claims he does not. This is not new, recently there has been some discussion in atheist circles.

      The reason for this is that the Christian Faith and hope revolves around the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead. The Apostle Paul himself said that if this event did not happen, if Christ was not physically resurrected, then our faith is worth nothing.

      Recently a guy named Richard Carrier has published a book in which he attempts to demonstrate that Jesus does not have a physical body. My friend Dr Peoples, a Christian philosophy, theologian and apologist has written a rebuttal of Carrier here: http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/richard-carrier-on-the-resurrection-part-1/ . Its worth a read. However, more importantly one of the passages Carrier uses to refute the physical body Christ is refuted by a NT (and greek) scholar here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/10/did-christ-have-a-physical-body/ - the full article follows:

      I haven’t read the book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder yet, but I have ordered it. I’m not exactly sure where this book is headed, but it seems to me that Robert Price would definitely believe that the tomb was indeed empty on that first Easter morning. The reason is that he believes that Jesus never existed. There’s a new breed of writers who are actually taking this idea seriously and are working out all sorts of explanations for how the rise of Christianity took shape. One of the objectives, it seems, is to deny that Paul ever spoke of Christ as having lived on earth. To Paul (according to this view), Jesus Christ was a mythical figure who roamed the heavens, not a real time-space man who suffered on a Roman cross, bled real blood, and rose from the grave bodily.

      This seems to be the view that one of the chapters especially takes. Again, I haven’t seen the book yet, but I am generally acquainted with the work and viewpoint of several of these authors, Richard Carrier among them. I was alerted to Carrier’s translations of various passages in his chapter, "The Spiritual Body of Christ."

      After calling one of the essays in the book "mean-spirited" the Publishers Weekly review added, "However, several essays make excellent points about holes in Christian apologists’ arguments; Richard Carrier’s discussion of the ‘spiritual body of Christ’ for instance, challenges Christians’ tendency to imagine a monolithic worldview among first-century Jews." This lone chapter was singled out for the highest praise by PW. Again, since I haven’t read the book yet, I cannot comment on the entirety of the chapter. But I can comment on one of the foundational pieces in it: whether Paul thought in terms of a spiritual body or a physical body when he considered the resurrection of Christ.

      One key passage on this is Romans 8.11-13. This is Carrier’s translation:
      "So if the spirit of the raiser of Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the raiser of Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies, through the Spirit dwelling in you. And so, therefore, brothers, we owe nothing to the flesh, we ought not live in the flesh, for if we live in the flesh, we are destined to die, but if we kill the deeds of the body we will live." (p. 149)

      Critique: On the one hand, this is an awkward translation, which normally means that the translator is a neophyte and is uncomfortable in working in Greek. On the other hand, it is a bit too free, indicating that the author is either quite comfortable working in Greek or has an agenda (this second would be the case if the translation is not true to the meaning of the original). The translation is reminiscent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’New World Translation in its method, a translation I would regard as the worst committee-produced English translation ever foisted on the public. In addition, there are some specific critiques I would add, most notably Carrier’s poor understanding of Greek syntax.

      Now for some specifics: "the raiser" (two times) is both overly literal and yet does not accurately reflect the Greek. Since the participle each time is aorist, the best translation would be "the one who raised" indicating that this was an event in the historical past. One wonders if Carrier is trying to do a sleight of hand, but suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus is not in the past. Then, either sloppiness in viewing antecedents or else an intentional deception is seen. Carrier has "through the Spirit dwelling in you" in v. 12. Earlier "spirit" was not capitalized. This time it is. If this is intentional, it seems meant to distinguish the two instances in vv. 11 and 12. But this neglects the autou, wedged between tou enoikountos and pneumatos. The Greek means either "throughhis Spirit" or "through the same Spirit." This is something, in fact, that we just went over in first-year Greek last week! By dropping either "his" or "same" and by rendering the first "spirit" in lower case and the second capitalized, the impression one gets is that two different s/Spirits are in view. Whether intentional or not, this is simply a poor, even sloppy translation by one who does not seem to be well acquainted with the language. There are other items we could quibble with in v. 12 (e.g., the use of exclusivist language for adelphoi when it has been amply demonstrated that adelphoi was often used of both genders in Koine Greek; the paraphrase of what should be translated as "we are obligated not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh" into the clumsy expansion, "we owe nothing to the flesh, we ought not live in the flesh" in which the single point is now divided into two, and the preposition "according to" is translated as "in"). Perhaps worst of all is v. 13: not only does the translator switch the person from second to first (from "you" to "we") with no warrant that I can discern, not only does he continue to illegitimately or at least loosely translate kata as in, but he also leaves out "by the Spirit" the only means by which one can kill the deeds of the body!

      If this translation showed up in an exegetical paper for one of my Romans classes, I doubt that I would give it a passing grade. I would note that the translator was not paying attention to the details of the text and thus was ending up with a view of the passage that was far afield from what Paul intended. Whether Carrier did this intentionally or unintentionally, either way his treatment of the text is illegitimate. If unintentional, then his competence in Koine Greek needs to be called into question. If intentional, then his integrity as a scholar needs to be called into question. I can almost understand this sort of thing in a rushed-off email to someone when a translator is distracted by Monday night football while he’s glancing at the text in semi-conscious awareness of the Greek. But for it to appear as a published translation" and one that no doubt has an agenda”seems inexcusable. Now if this is the best chapter in the book (as Publishers Weekly almost hints at), I have to wonder how good the rest of the tome is.

      Nevertheless, I am sure I am missing something. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to Carrier and see if he has defended himself in lexical or grammatical explanation, footnotes, or text-critical decisions that would alter the text. Has anyone read the book yet? How does Carrier defend this translation?



    • Peter Silverstone
      I will not deny, that you are good at history. I wish you could combine  it with some logic. Peter ... From: Sbkidde@aol.com Subject: Re:
      Message 161 of 161 , Jul 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment


        I will not deny, that you are good at history. I wish you could combine  it with some logic.

        Peter

        --- On Mon, 7/11/11, Sbkidde@... <Sbkidde@...> wrote:

        From: Sbkidde@... <Sbkidde@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 4:08 AM

         

        Peter, others,
         
        Egypt was a "player" in the high stakes game of rebellion against the Assyrian empire. Israel and Syria were pressuring Judah to take up arms against Assyrian oppression.
         
        They also appealed to Egypt to support their rebellion.  Isaiah's prophecy was communicated to the people of Judah to encourage them to remain faithful to the covenant with the Lord of hosts.
         
        Isaiah adocated that faithfulness to the convenant with God would protect Judah from collapse due to oppression. The covenant includes respect for the poor.
         
        Isaiah 3:14-15
        The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people:
        It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.
        What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?
        says the Lord GOD of hosts.
         
        ==============
         
        Isaiah 19:19-20 refers to an altar dedicated to monotheism in Egypt. It says,
         
        On that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the center of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border. It will be a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; when they cry to the LORD because of oppressors, he will send them a savior and will defend and deliver them.
         
        ===============
         
        There is a record of an Egyptian pharoah, Akhentaten, who limited worship in his realm to one god.
         
        The Hindus also professed belief in a godhead from which all the gods and goddesses sprung. Thus, there are those that argue that polytheism is fundamentally monotheistic.
         
        The title "Lord of hosts" itself addresses a persuasion to people to adopt belief in the highest power as the God who is worthy of worship. This suggests that prophecy regarding the conflict that the Egyptians would experience was a warning about the consequences that belief in different gods would reek on the people of the land. It was a warning about polytheism addressed through Egypt. The basic message is that belief in one God unites the people of the land. 
         
        The ten commandments are the expression of a moral code. It is short enough so people, even poor uneducated people could learn it and behave in a moral and law abiding manner. The code of Hammurabi was much more complicated, but it was the legal code for empire. The prophets advocated that belief in the ten commandments would help people to obey the law and avoid the consequences for violating the code. The influence of the code extended beyond Babylon.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi#History
         
        Given the scenario that you presented to Geoff, the prophet was predicting conflict, not necessarily doom. He was also presenting an advocacy for belief in one God which some have argued was a fundamental tenet of polytheism anyway. The people of different kingdoms knew that invasion by an imperial force or a foreign kingdom could happen. It wasn't worse than that which had been used to warn the people of Judah and Israel, so all in all, it wasn't that bad. It could have been better. Prophecy regarding destruction could have a self-fulfilling affect if it were to be believed that there was no hope for faithfulness to the Lord of Hosts. Nevertheless, fidelity was an option.
         
        Steve K. 
         
         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, Jul 9, 2011 9:45 am
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams

         
         
        Hey Geoff,

        You said, “Clearly all peoples, and all nations, are subject to God, because he created all of them. Really, this is sunday school stuff that gets taught to little kids..” 

        Now that is clearly  being rude.  I think were are here to contemplate and discus  the unknown, who is God. Now instead of being logical, you are showing irritability. There is some one who said, and I quote, “ a man is a bigot, who wont reason, he is a fool who cannot reason, and he is a slave who dare not reason” I though this forum was to spar each other philosophically, and reasonably. We all know what stuff that kids are taught in Sunday school.

         I am not talking about today’s Sunday school however.  I want to take you back, 2800 years back. What I want to imagine is that you were still called Geoff, but you are a from Egypt. Then you hear that there is a prophet of a neighboring nation, prophesying doom for you. He says,

          See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him,  and the hearts of the Egyptians melt within them.  2“I will stir up Egyptian against Egyptian— brother will fight against brother, neighbor against neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom.  3The Egyptians will lose heart, and I will bring their plans to nothing;  they will consult the idols and the spirits of the dead, the mediums and the spiritists.  4I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master, and a fierce king will rule over them,” declares the Lord, the Lord Almighty.  Isaiah 19:1-4

        Now, as an Egyptian, you know you have your own gods, yet this strange God of the Israelites want to destroy you. Would you not wonder “ what have we done to this God”? Would it not be like  FBI arresting and charging  a  Swedish national  for buying marijuana in a coffee shop?   Why would the Mosaic law apply to the Egyptians?Why does God judge the egyptians as if they were Israelites?
        Peter


        --- On Fri, 7/8/11, Geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: Geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, July 8, 2011, 8:22 PM

         
        Peter,

        EVERY person is REQUIRED to be in a relationship with God. That is how we were created it to be. Death occurs to all people because we are not.

        Israel is meant to be the nation that is the example to all nations, they are meant to be the light that draws in all nations, but they failed, so now we are.
        God is king over all the world, all the peoples, and his requirement of relationship is for all people, in all planets, in all galaxies. He is king over all things, not just "one nation". Have you never read the Psalms? Psalm 1&2 set out the claim for the individual and for the nation:

        The Way of the Righteous and the Wicked
        1 Blessed is the man1
        who awalks not in bthe counsel of the wicked,
        nor stands in cthe way of sinners,
        nor dsits in ethe seat of fscoffers;
        2 but his gdelight is in the law2 of the Lord,
        and on his hlaw he meditates day and night.
        3 He is like ia tree
        planted by jstreams of water
        that yields its fruit in its season,
        and its kleaf does not wither.
        lIn all that he does, he prospers.
        4 The wicked are not so,
        but are like mchaff that the wind drives away.
        5 Therefore the wicked nwill not stand in the judgment,
        nor sinners in othe congregation of the righteous;
        6 for the Lord pknows qthe way of the righteous,
        but the way of the wicked will perish.
        The Reign of the Lord’s Anointed
        2 rWhy do sthe nations rage1
        and the peoples plot in vain?
        2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
        and the rulers take counsel together,
        against the Lord and against his tAnointed, saying,
        3 “Let us uburst their bonds apart
        and cast away their cords from us.”
        4 He who vsits in the heavens wlaughs;
        the Lord holds them in derision.
        5 Then he will speak to them in his xwrath,
        and terrify them in his fury, saying,
        6 “As for me, I have yset my King
        on zZion, my aholy hill.”
        7 I will tell of the decree:
        The Lord said to me, b“You are my Son;
        today I have begotten you.
        8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
        and cthe ends of the earth your possession.
        9 You shall dbreak2 them with ea rod of iron
        and dash them in pieces like fa potter’s vessel.”
        10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
        be warned, O rulers of the earth.
        11 gServe the Lord with hfear,
        and irejoice with htrembling.
        12 jKiss kthe Son,
        lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
        for his lwrath is quickly kindled.
        mBlessed are all who take refuge in him.


        Clearly all peoples, and all nations, are subject to God, because he created all of them. Really, this is sunday school stuff that gets taught to little kids..


        On 08/07/11 17:12, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         
        Hey Geoff,
         
        I think you were the one who was accusing me of bad exegesis In fact you called it “eisogesis - reading meaning into the text, rather than getting it out” You claim that “this does NOT say God does not recognize anyone else”

        Let me ask you, if God recognized other families of the earth, why did He not invite them to the Covenant  together with Israel?  Lets follow this logic. We do have penal codes which  sets out the  general principles of the criminal and penalties created by governments all over the world. Now, if any act of omission or commission has not been recognized as a crime for example in your country, one cannot be prosecuted for it.

        For example in Finland Sweden, your will find coffee shops where people are free to buy and smoke  marijuana and or Hashish. Its legal and its not a crime. But, can you do that in for example in USA? Mare possession of legal substance would lead to prosecution.  If an American went to Sweden, and went to a coffee shops, bought and smokes marijuana, he would not be prosecuted. But if a Scandinavian dared to smoke marijuana in America, he would be prosecuted.

        The point is, it does not make sense  for a law to apply to those who are not under its jurisdiction. Therefore, if at all, God did not invite the rest of humanity to the covenant, it did not make sense for the law of Moses to apply to none Israelites. Yet, God punishes the none Israelites as if they were party to the covenant. Why?

        Peter


        --- On Thu, 7/7/11, Geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: Geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 4:30 AM

         
        Hi Peter,

        tn Heb “You only have I known.” The Hebrew verb יָדַע (yada’) is used here in its covenantal sense of “recognize in a special way.”

        This does NOT say God does not recognise anyone else, just that God has a special relationship with Israel. I already pointed this out to you.

        Adam is representative of all humanity, we are all in his likeness (gen 5:1-3), we are all under the rule of God the King, and it is His right to punish us if we go against him.
        The moral Law only makes clear to us the depth of our rebellion against God, it does not matter what nation, all nations are under God.  Israel was meant to lead us all to God, but they failed, so God ecame man in the form of Jesus, and in doing so draws us all to him.

        You appear to be confusing things a bit here.


        On 7/6/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         
        Hey Geoff,
         
        You said, So, "not knowing God" is in fact the primary thing they are guilty of. Evidence of God is all around, ignorance is no excuse.
         
        Here is what Yahweh says of Israel. “Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up out of the land of Egypt: 2 "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Amos 3:1-3
         
        So, here, God claims that He never acknowledged any other people except Israel. And he says, that because He knows them, and they were supposed to know Him, that’s the reason He punishes them.  So, if your contention is that not knowing God is sin, how could it be a sin when even God did not acknowledge them?  If He did not know or acknowledge the Jebusites, the Amarekites, the Sodomites, for what reason was He punishing them?
        Peter


        --- On Wed, 7/6/11, geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 12:54 AM

         
        Peter,

        The Israelites were not God's _only_ people. All people are meant to be God's representatives, and Israel is meant to lead the way.

        We are all guilty of Sin, that is, "being outside of an intimate relationship with God" because we are all born in "the likeness" of Adam.
        At the very least these items you raise are guilty of that. They prove that by their deeds; injustice, sexual perversions, etc etc.

        So, "not knowing God" is in fact the primary thing they are guilty of. Evidence of God is all around, ignorance is no excuse.
        God, who is their King, has the right to punish traitors, right? Those people gave their allegiance to a different King, a lesser King, and God is right and just in punishing them for it.

        On 05/07/11 17:24, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         


        Well, Geoff,
         
        You have said that you have read the bible and even written a thesis on Paul and the Law. Thats good.  I remember you agreed that logic is not precluded from exegesis of the bible. You have said that according to the bible, Law is the Torah. Okey. Who gave the Torah to the Israelites? God, no? Why did He give the Israelites the Torah? I guess you will agree with me, that its because He had chosen them as a special people for his purpose, and as a guidance in keeping their part of the covenant.

         If then, the Torah is the moral codes given by God to the Israelites as a guidance in living  a life under the covenant, then, it was logical to expect, and also to understand when God punished  the Israelites every time they broke the covenants, ie. when they broke the law.
        So, logic tell me, and I hope you will agree with me, that in regard to the Israelites, “punishment” “reward” “blessings” “curses” all these were determined by whether or not, the Israelites obeyed the law.

        Therefore, this logic, also tells me that as long as God had not revealed Himself to  a people, and they did not have any covenant relationship with Him, and they did not have any Torah from God as a guide, God  who is just, had no business either blessing them, or punishing them. After all, they did not even know Him.

         Therefore, it would have been illogical for God to punish a people who did not know Him,
        Let us go back, to the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 7&8 We find Moses preparing the Israelites entry to Canaan.  He tells them, that they are about to enter and destroy greater and mightier nations than themselves. He tells them, that God id not giving them power over the nations because of any good that the have done, rather, God is punishing the Sons of Anak, because of their wickedness. So, if according to you, the Law Torah was a moral code, why was God punishing the Sons of Anak, the Jebusites, the Amarekites, the Hitites, ? What law had they broken, yet they did not even know God?

        Secondly, What law had the people of Sodom and Gomorrah broken, for God to bring rain of fire from heaven?  Thirdly, for what good, was God rewarding King Cyrus, since God even calls him His “anointed" and He even claimed that Cyrus did not know Him?
         
        Peter

        --- On Mon, 7/4/11, geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, July 4, 2011, 10:54 PM

         
        Hi Peter,

        I believe, having studied the Bible, particularly in regards to the Law, and having written a thesis on the subject of Paul and the Law, that I am at least minimally qualified to know what "law" is in the bible.

        You can want it to mean anything you want outside the bible, but biblically, it is a very specific word.

        On 04/07/11 16:54, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         

        Hey Geoff,

        Common, man! Law is law is law. Whether we are talking about "cosmic laws" or "moral codes" there is absolutely no difference. But then, again, we sort of  hold different ideas about the universe, God, and us.  I believe that God is the creator and the created. You do not. Therefore, I understand why you are able to differentiate “cosmic” laws and “ moral codes”

        My position is that the Truth, which we are all seeking, is that we all, are part of God-head personality. We are God, because we are his children. And since God fills Heaven and earth, we  are connected with Him, and therefore we are connected with all creation. Call it “pantheism” if you like. And its not just an “entertaining idea” It’s the Truth. And an “expanded perceptions of our own universes" is also the part of the Truth.

         Fact is, that is what God has being trying to convey to us human beings, but we kind of like being smatter.  The Torah, was a kind of a “ kid school” introduction into the big picture.  Then, when the Christ came, He kind of gave us, an “updated” version of the Torah.  "Love" One  Law that covers all. And from this One Law, we understand the Truth.

        Peter

        --- On Sun, 7/3/11, Geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: Geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, July 3, 2011, 1:51 AM

         
        Peter,

        Any ancient document must be studied according to "method", regardless of whether it was bible or Iliad, or any other such thing.
        When it comes to getting understanding from the Bible, there is an art/science called "Hermeneutics". This encompasses all the fields required, languages, history, archeology, sociology, logic, philosophy, science, etc.

        No one is precluding logical critique at all. I wish there was more on this forum, then we would have less "entertaining ideas" and "expanded perceptions of our own universes" and more truth.

        I suspect you are confused about what the bible means when it says law. The bible refers to a "moral code", the "torah" - this is the word that is translated "law".
        When  it talks about "cosmic laws" (cause and effect etc), it uses different terms, and usually analogies which would be understood by the readers.


        On 02/07/11 19:11, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         
        Hey Geoff,

        You say that "exegesis is a peer review art" You also said that "That to which I refer is commonly accepted amongst those who wish to understand the truth as "proper"  Can you please define you “proper” because you have put it in italics, meaning that its different from the normal “proper”

         I have issues with your idea of exegesis. As far as I am concerned, exegesis which precludes logical critique, does not lead to enlightenment, but rather to indoctrination. That’s why I like entertaining ideas which expand my own perception of the universe, and God.

        Its also the reason why I am not fussing about “pantheistic believes” When you claim that “Had God never created humans there would be no "Law", there would still, however, be order.” I do not know what you mean by that. It does not make logic. Law did not happen, because man appeared. It has always been there. Archimedes did not “create” the law of buoyancy. It existed before him. He merely recognized it. Newton did not “create” the laws of gravity.  He recognized it, and figured out how it operates. Einstein did not create the laws of relativity. He just figured it out.

        You are telling us, that there is a difference between “order” and “law”? That “order does not come from the law”?  Can you possibly differentiate them? Order to me, is “law operating” Order, is active law. How then can you argue that order can exist in absence of law?
        In fact, Law is so supreme, that there exists nothing but the Law, because as I said, God, is Law. And creation is God, manifesting Himself.  Ask the scientists. They will tell you that everything that exists, is made up of subatomic particles. And that these subatomic particles have dual  characteristic. They are neither particles, nor waves. They are both. And what does  this “wave-particle” characteristic reveal to us, the nature of matter, including you? Scientists tell us that sub atomic particles are nothing but “a logical excitation of energy in a quantum field”   This “logical excitation” is law of God operating creation, without which, matter cannot exists.

        Peter


        --- On Fri, 7/1/11, Geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: Geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, July 1, 2011, 8:59 PM

         
        Hi Peter,

        There is nothing twisted about what I am saying at all. That to which I refer is commonly accepted amongst those who wish to understand the truth as "proper". You should be able to demonstrate your understanding to anyone, and they should be able to replicate your method and reproduce your findings. Exegesis is a "peer reviewed" art, and requires certain skills.

        Order does not come from the law. The Law, as I said, virtually ALWAYS in scripture refers to the law of Moses. In some cases it also refers to general instruction about God. This is biblical interpretative method 101 - find out how a word is used generally in scripture, and then in extra-biblical literature.

        Order in creation comes from God, from the creation event. Had God never created humans there would be no "Law", there would still, however, be order.

        The problem with devotional reading is that you can not demonstrate a method of understanding, and therefore it only means something to you. You can not "prove" it, and therefore can not foist your understanding generally on scripture, or on anyone else. Let the reader beware.

        On 01/07/11 16:44, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         


        Hey Geoff,

        You said, "This is one of the dangers we have, whilst these passages might speak to you "personally" about cause and effect, this is what we call "devotional reading" - the passage speaks to you personally that way. However, the truth of what the passage says is, and must be demonstrable using proper method, and if so, then they do not say what you "devotionally" read.


        I find your assertion rather disturbing. You are alleging that there is what you are calling "devotiona; reading" which speaks to me "personaly" and that is "dangerous" Then again, you also claim that there is the "true" and "proper meaning" which can be "demonstrated with "proper method"

        Well I think you are making the truth rather twisted, when it should be plain and clear. And that, is why its called, " naked truth"  What do you see around you, besides what human beings have created? Order. This order, comes from law, which is God. Thats why He says,

        12|" It was I who made the earth and I created human beings on it, mine were the hands that spread out the heavens and I have given the orders to all their array."
         
        23 By my own self I swear it; what comes from my mouth is saving justice, it is an irrevocable word: All shall bend the knee to me, by me every tongue shall swear,
         
        19 I have not spoken in secret, in some dark corner of the underworld. I did not say, 'Offspring of Jacob, search for me in chaos!' I am Yahweh: I proclaim saving justice, I say what is true.

        I am just reasoning plainly with common sense. God claims, He crated Order. He says He is not a God of chaos. He says, He speaks Law. What can be more plainer?

        Peter

        --- On Thu, 6/30/11, geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 7:04 PM

         
        Hi Peter,

        "Law" in this context is "torah", and means "the Mosaic Law" or more generally "instruction about God". It does not refer to any "science". While we can assume that all scientific axioms stem from God, since he created order, neither these passages nor the one before refer to it.

        This is one of the dangers we have, whilst these passages might speak to you "personally" about cause and effect, this is what we call "devotional reading" - the passage speaks to you personally that way. However, the truth of what the passage says is, and must be demonstrable using proper method, and if so, then they do not say what you "devotionally" read.

        On 30/06/11 16:58, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         
        Hey Geoff,

        What you said was,

        'Cause and effect is a law of the universe however, not "the nature of God".'

        Yet, God says He is the Law.

        He says, "So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11
         
        "Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations. Isaiah 51:4

        God also says, " What comes from my mouth, is the Truth, a word irrevocable"  Meaning the law.

        All these are atributes of God. The nature of God, is that He is the Law. But you claim that he is not. I disagree.

        Peter


        --- On Wed, 6/29/11, geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 4:35 AM

         

        Hi Peter,

        I'm not exempting anything, other than pointing out what the passage is about. Since the passage does not really support what you're saying, it exempts itself.

        On 28/06/11 17:13, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         

        Hey Geoff.

        I did not know that there were specific passages that were exempted from this discussion. You are telling me. Are there others?

        Peter

        --- On Sat, 6/25/11, Geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: Geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, June 25, 2011, 9:32 PM

         
        Hi Peter,

        I dont see what is rude about that. We simply do not need any one passage to tell us that.
        Even the atheist philosophers concur that should there be a God, that God must rule over all things, or not really be God.
        That of course includes such rules as "cause and effect", "seed time and harvest" etc.

        On 25/06/11 19:01, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         
        "we do not need this passage to tell us that." Tut tut, aint we rude?

        --- On Fri, 6/24/11, Geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: Geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 7:54 PM

         
        Hi Peter,

        There is always cause and effect, but I explained to you what the passage is about, and did not sidestep at all.
        God is God over all things, all laws of the universe, we do not need this passage to tell us that.

        Cause and effect is a law of the universe however, not "the nature of God".

        On 24/06/11 17:06, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         
        Geoff,

        Hey, I think I put in  bold, underlined, and put it in italics, to catch you attention to it, and yet, you have deliberatly  sidestepped the question. In you opinion, does not this passage, bring out most glaringly, the nature of God, as the Law of Cause and effect?

        Peter

        --- On Thu, 6/23/11, geoff <geoff@...> wrote:

        From: geoff <geoff@...>
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Resurrection of body ? Soul & Spirit Resurrection, dreams
        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 11:32 PM

         
        Hi Peter,

        This passage is about how no matter how good you are, you can not save yourself, it is a faithful response to the salvic work of God.

        It might seem hard to grasp, because we have been led to believe that the Jews believe that obedience to the law saves. However, recently many books have been published (its called "the new perspective on Paul), which show that rather than being the norm, it was in fact only a small sect of Judaism that believed that. Rabbinic literature generally teaches that one enters the covenant by faith, then obedience follows.


        On 23/06/11 17:00, Peter Silverstone wrote:
         



        “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 8When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.