Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Matthew 16:18-20 and 24:45-51 -- one human shepherd?
- Hi, Paul L.:Take your time in replying to my post'. In my post I quoted Jesus saying (Matt 5:8) : "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall SEE (capitalized for emphasis) God. Now, read your post. You made Jesus say the opposite.There is no need to answer this. I will wait for your new post.Regards.Isalcordo---------------------------------------------------- Original Message -----From: Paul LeonardSent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:25 PMSubject: Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Matthew 16:18-20 and 24:45-51 -- one human shepherd?
I hope you do not mind the brevity of the post. I am grabbing a little time to reply as I can. Not only still running around like a chicken with it's head chopped off, but my daughter and son in law arrive tomorrow for a visit and we are trying to get the house in half way decent shape and unpacking and putting away as much as possible. Not to mention that tomorrow a pallet of material arrives at my new office and I have to unload and deal with it all by my self (poor me). I figured I owed you some time, so here is what I have done so far.
Let me comment on this point.
You say: Now, almost all other versions have ". . . no man can see. . ." and so does the Greek Interlinear. But this contradicts what Jesus himself said in Matt 5:8 (Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God), unless Timothy and Jesus were talking about two different "Gods." Despite the contradiction, we must accept both Jesus and Timothy as telling us undeniable spiritual truths. How then to make of the situation so that both, what Jesus said and what was revealed to Timothy, would be acceptable to Christians as "spiritual truths?"
A.P. There is no contradiction. Consider that first Jesus said: “…. no man can see…”, and that is correct. “NO MAN”. You are assuming that “man” will see God literally.
You: Here, we are forced to interpret "God" in "God is one" as referring to the "Godhead".
A.P. No we are not forced to unless we are trying to fit Scripture to a preconceived theology. I prefer to let Scripture interpret Scripture.
First you use the term “Godhead”. Can you provide any other reference, beyond the one possible use of this word in Scripture, in any other writing from that time period? Where did the word “Godhead” come from? Can you provide any evidence that the Greek word means “Godhead” and supply a definition from any source using this word in another place?
You: Who in His "Oneness" is absolutely beyond human (and, possibly, angelic) sight and,
A.P. I agree He is beyond Human sight. However the Scriptures tell us angels do see God and in fact even Satan walked right up to God in heaven:
(Job 1:6) 6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.
Jesus even said:
(Matthew 18:10) 10 See to it that YOU men do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell YOU that their angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.
You: therefore, beyond the human faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind, unless He reveals Himself to His creations in some way or ways without compromising His being as ". . . one no one (man) has seen or can see.".
A.P. You are building an argument on the idea that we cannot comprehend sufficiently what God HAS revealed about Himself. This goes back to NO man has or can see” God. By the way that eliminates Jesus from being man in heaven and seeing God.
So how can those Jesus spoke of as seeing God in the future do so?
Paul helps us understand that they will no longer be “man”, or earthly beings.
KJV 1Cor 15: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: … 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
Here is the key:
KJV 1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Those who will see God are no longer of earth or earthly/flesh (human) they become heavenly/spiritual beings that can see God.
Paul explains this change.
(1 Corinthians 15:50-52) 50 However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Religion is not science. Nobody could have "corrected" the Bishop of Rome. The most one can do really is to propose or argue a different "opinion" on certain subject, like the canonicity of certain writings from that expressed by the Pope, or on the Pope's stand on certain "unsettled" church issues. Of course, one can expose abuses by Popes, as did Luther on the sellling of iidulgences. But that did not happen in the first 1000 years of the Catholic Church.
In the Service of the Lay People of God.
--- In email@example.com, "William" <eliadefollower@...> wrote:
> I wrote very little in the post about the bishop in Rome being corrected. Most of it was cut and paste from my cited sourde.
> Likewise you use of the Catholic Encyclopedia and Eusebius to defend your position is roughly comparable to asking the fox if he raided the chicken coop. Those which have reason to defend the position of Rome will find ways to defend it rather then admit wrongdoing. Please find non-Catholic defenses of this incident. Also remember, there is evidence that Eusebius intentionally corrupted sources to accomodate his patron, Constantine, even as he sought, as a historian, to present the truth. Eusebius is one of the sources I refer to in support of the fact that Acts in not historical, but rather denies history when inconvenient.