The bible is rather boring
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:
how come you know i'm still lurking around
[b]Ben, this is one result of reading the gospels first then the epistles.
[/b]
hahaa
i am following this dialogue with great interest. Do carry on, i still got another hour till the sun rises then i can go makan breakfast -
Do not reply so fast. Check the context. You have trouble understanding because you do not read chronologically and with a 1st century Jewish mindset.Originally posted by Ironside:Actually Paul was so clear in saying that Christ resurrected from the dead physically here:
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
now you are trying to find out if the OT Scriptures did indeed taught resurrection from the dead PHYSICALLY.
And in your last post you agree that Acts is talking about a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION.....RIGHT?
And what is the 1st century Jewish mindset?
It is this:John 11:
And what happens next is the famous story of Lazarus.
23Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ 24Martha said to him, ‘I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.’
So Lazarus did rise .. only to die later!
This is the Jewish understanding of resurrection - it should happen on the last day. And the bodies should be glorified, definitely not with holes.
Which is why Ben's theory is good .. they were expecting Jesus to come soon 'cos His resurrection signifies that the end is near! -
huh .. it is 0300 in SG leh.Originally posted by ben1xy:how come you know i'm still lurking around
hahaa
i am following this dialogue with great interest. Do carry on, i still got another hour till the sun rises then i can go makan breakfast
what time there? -
Your question is vague and I decline to answer directly.Originally posted by Ironside:OH ACCORDING TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING...........THERE ARE TWO RESURRECTIONS....THE FULL OF HOLES VERSION AND THE GLORIFIED VERSION.....AM I RIGHT?
I only have this to say - the OT and Paul's version is glorified version. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
1Co 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
And what happens next is the famous story of Lazarus.
So Lazarus did rise .. only to die later!
This is the Jewish understanding of resurrection - it should happen on the last day. And the bodies should be glorified, definitely not with holes.
[b]Which is why Ben's theory is good .. they were expecting Jesus to come soon 'cos His resurrection signifies that the end is near![/b]
the word 'firstfruits' have some idea of prototype there. The text is saying: Jesus' resurrection from the dead is a prototype of those who would be resurrected later in the Second Coming of Christ.
Since the Lord Jesus' resurrection is physical, it follows that the believers in Him would be resurrected physically also. Becauze the resurrection of the just is according to the prototype--the Lord Jesus'- which is a physical resurrection. -
5 am. 1 more hour till day break, then i can go jalan to the beach for breakfastOriginally posted by Icemoon:huh .. it is 0300 in SG leh.
what time there?
anyway, dun bother abt me, u guys continue (don't fen xing), i will pop by everytime i finish writing one paragraph. haha -
let me put it directly: so according to you, there are two types of resurrection: glorified and holes version.....am i correct?Originally posted by Icemoon:Your question is vague and I decline to answer directly.
I only have this to say - the OT and Paul's version is glorified version. -
let's continue this......i have to go.. bye.. nice exchange.
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:
I want to pre-empt anyone of using the argument - oh, so you authenticating the full of holes version of resurrection now?
[b]Which is why Ben's theory is good .. they were expecting Jesus to come soon 'cos His resurrection signifies that the end is near![/b]
My reply:
I am not.
And note that Paul never preached the full of holes version. He preached the glorified and powerful version. And when his epistles got circulated, what people read was the glorified version.
And so when Jesus didnt come, they were disappointed. So have to come out with an auxuliary hypothesis!
PS: Auxuliary hypothesis is a scientific concept. Those who do research (like Ben) or study the scientific method should know what it means. -
Originally posted by Ironside:
Wait a minute.
1Co 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the [b]firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
the word 'firstfruits' have some idea of prototype there. The text is saying: Jesus' resurrection from the dead is a prototype of those who would be resurrected later in the Second Coming of Christ.
Since the Lord Jesus' resurrection is physical, it follows that the believers in Him would be resurrected physically also. Becauze the resurrection of the just is according to the prototype--the Lord Jesus'- which is a physical resurrection.
[/b]
Now you bring in Second Coming and admitted that the Pauline verse is talking about the Second Coming!
How about the full of holes version?
Edit: the second coming version is the glorified version, definitely not full of holes -
Still not direct enough.Originally posted by Ironside:let me put it directly: so according to you, there are two types of resurrection: glorified and holes version.....am i correct?
Don't say according to me. We all reading the same bible, so it is according to the bible, not me.
I just use some sort of historical analysis, a bit of common sense, some discretion etc. to evaluate the verses. -
He will come physically just as He resurrected. He resurrected into a glorified body. Glorified has the idea of perfection on it. You do not improve on what's already perfect.Originally posted by Icemoon:Wait a minute.
Now you bring in Second Coming and admitted that the Pauline verse is talking about the Second Coming!
How about the full of holes version?
I would be glad to see my Savior....i will know Him......He is the One with the pierced hands and feet. Forever reminding me in eternity that it was His work on the cross that got me to heaven.
By your post above it would sure lead someone to think that there are two versions of the resurrection--holes version and glorified version. -
by the way Peter and Paul agreed that the Lord Jesus' resurrection was a physical one. I don't know how anyone could miss this one. it was so clearly told out by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 the whole chapter that it was a physical glorifed resurrection. -
you said bye bye 10 minutes before. Is this a bot?Originally posted by Ironside:He will come physically just as He resurrected. He resurrected into a glorified body. Glorified has the idea of perfection on it. You do not improve on what's already perfect.
I would be glad to see my Savior....i will know Him......He is the One with the pierced hands and feet. Forever reminding me in eternity that it was His work on the cross that got me to heaven.
By your post above it would sure lead someone to think that there are two versions of the resurrection--holes version and glorified version.
But never mind, this bot still perform not up to standard.
I lead someone to think? Not me ok .. every reader who reads the gospel accounts and Acts KNOW they are reading a resurrection - holes version.
Don't blame me when this is what the bible writes. -
let's continue tomorrow. it's close to 4 am here. bye
-
Don't keep on harping on physical resurrection. Furthermore, the term 'physical' here is vague.Originally posted by Ironside:by the way Peter and Paul agreed that the Lord Jesus' resurrection was a physical one. I don't know how anyone could miss this one. it was so clearly told out by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 the whole chapter that it was a physical glorifed resurrection.
I already clarified, many posts before, that I am not defending my using of the term spiritual. I am sorry to confuse you.
The issue has always been whether the resurrection talked about is full of holes or glorified.
The OT, common Jewish folks in 1st century Palestine (exemplied by Lazarus' sister), and Paul (who exemplified the educated rabbi) all thinks it is the glorified version.
It was you who tried to bring the glorified version and the holes version, as accounted by the gospel and acts, together.
Then suddenly, you mention that 1 Cor is actually talking about the Second Coming!! What does the Second Coming Resurrection have to do with Gospel Account Resurrection?!
I dunno whether the humble pie is in your mouth now or not. Or have you swallowed it without telling us? -
Don't come at 4.10 and give a reply ok!Originally posted by Ironside:let's continue tomorrow. it's close to 4 am here. bye -
Daily Bread? which one? The Catholic's one is very chim.Originally posted by ben1xy:i use daily bread.
i also subscribe to this e-mail thingy that sends verses everyday. When i have time before i start work, i'll do some light-reading.
it's still a struggle i guess.
that's why sloth is one of the 7 capital sins.
-
got Catholic version one ah?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Daily Bread? which one? The Catholic's one is very chim.
Is it by RBC Ministries also? -
i used RBC versionOriginally posted by Honeybunz:Daily Bread? which one? The Catholic's one is very chim.
there are a few good Catholic ones; MAjella and hmmm, i forgot the other one. the other is actually quite good. But my dad subscribes to it, so sometimes i will borrow from him.
Hunnybunz, i subscribe to this Catholic daily verse thingy. they send u the reflection for the msg used at daily Mass accompanied by a short reflection and reading. if u want, let me know yeah
-
not that i know ofOriginally posted by Icemoon:got Catholic version one ah?
Is it by RBC Ministries also? -
NO one force u to read.Originally posted by jaydunkfull:one of the ways to learn about God is to read the bible, but to me the bible is kinda the most untouchable book around the house. sorry about that. i really would like to try to read the bible but its really rather dry and boring. to make it worse, the print is so fine that it makes reading it a chore. im not trying to flame anything but seriously, how do you christians read the bible? can anyone tell me how to get interested in the bible. people have told me to start reading from the new testament onwards but my interest starts to wane away once i get started and i end up throwing the bible to one side and not touching it for months.
If u are interested then read..
if not..
NEXT -
wah .. you think this is programming ah? All the 'if' .. 'not' .. 'next' ..Originally posted by spycampers:NO one force u to read.
If u are interested then read..
if not..
NEXT -
Okie la..Originally posted by Icemoon:wah .. you think this is programming ah? All the 'if' .. 'not' .. 'next' ..
been used to programming language le..
ha ha -
How to tell whether it is RBC version?Originally posted by ben1xy:i used RBC version
there are a few good Catholic ones; MAjella and hmmm, i forgot the other one. the other is actually quite good. But my dad subscribes to it, so sometimes i will borrow from him.
Hunnybunz, i subscribe to this Catholic daily verse thingy. they send u the reflection for the msg used at daily Mass accompanied by a short reflection and reading. if u want, let me know yeah
The one that I have is titled : My Daily Bread.
Catholic daily verse thingy... which website is that?