Doctrine of God

[B Bob]

Is God only an invisible Spirit or is He also flesh (human)?

[marco]

[Replying to post 95 by marco]
And you just speculated a problem that you don't know if it applies to a glorified body

We first deal in practicalities before we move to the ethereal - surely. If you suppose that the blood was gone and a skeletal Christ walked around, the problem remains as to how Christ managed to get his solid bones through a solid door.

I grant that if Christ were merely a spirit, of no substance, then he could move however he chose. But let him retain bones and we have a problem still. He seems to have had a normally functioning body since he asked for food and consumed it.

[marco]

Lets break down your comments to see how lofty and intelligent they appear upon further speculation:

I would rather you examined their truth rather than their wit and loftiness. That might be easier, in any event.

YOUR QUOTE:
What a glorified body can do is a matter of armchair speculation. END QUOTE

However, you preceded with total speculation concerning Christs glorified body -

I simply pointed out what BONE can do and pass through walls is not one of its properties. If this is not so, then, as I said, we can speculate to our heart's content. Of course it could be "glorified" bone.

YOUR QUOTE:
Amusing. Because Christ mentions flesh and bones it is assumed that the flesh is spread alarmingly over bones, with no blood. That would render Christ unrecognizable; it would mean that Thomas would get no satisfaction about wounds; and it would still not solve the problem of bone penetrating locked doors. END QUOTE

Amusing, how you have no problem with your own armchair speculation as if you know what the results would be of a body resurrected without blood. Mmmm.

Well I don't. I am simply giving details of what you report - that the body is missing its blood. You haven't said ichor was substituted.

Upon further preponderance of 1 Cor 15:50-55, anyone should be able to understand the resurrected body of Christ is not perishable and all that are resurrected in Christ have put on the imperishable. Therefore, if flesh and blood are perishable, then an imperishable resurrected body of flesh and bone cannot be operated by blood.

Ingeniously literal conclusion. Paul opines:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

What he means, of course, is not clear. I doubt that he meant that bodies are thoroughly drained of their blood to produce skeletons with a coating of skin. A sensible interpretation is that the Kingdom is not of this world, as Christ said. Thus things like bodies don't fit into the Kingdom and people take on spiritual garments to enter a spiritual world. It is silly to suggest that bits of human beings, such as the thigh bone, manage to get into the non-physical heaven.

When Paul talks of "flesh and blood" he is using a figure of speech called synecdoche where a part is used to represent the whole. Humans in human form cannot get into heaven.

Of course, as with much of the Bible, we can dig for other interpretations, some reasonable and some silly.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 100 by marco]

No need to presume. Christ shed His blood for us. That is how He died. He bleed out! That is not to say there was no remnants of blood in His earthly body. Also, the piercing of His side only proved He was dead.

Now, do you have any reasonable takes yourself? Or you just going to be a critic?

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 102 by marco]

You have not displayed an ability to defend your position with scripture.

Scripture is needed to interpret scripture - see 2 Tim 3:16. Your suppositions, assumptions, and presumptions are not scripture and actually do more to invalidate your arguments, than validate them. If you want to validate your arguments, you must validate it based on the word of God. Doing otherwise is an empty sound in the air.

[marco]

[Replying to post 102 by marco]

You have not displayed an ability to defend your position with scripture.

Scripture is needed to interpret scripture - see 2 Tim 3:16. Your suppositions, assumptions, and presumptions are not scripture and actually do more to invalidate your arguments, than validate them. If you want to validate your arguments, you must validate it based on the word of God. Doing otherwise is an empty sound in the air.

I see. The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose as Shakespeare tells us. When I need to, I quote Scripture to support a point I am making. I used Paul's lines to argue my point. Presumably you want me to find a line in Scripture that coincides with the point I am making. I was using John 18:36 to make the point about the Kingdom not being of this world. I have done the courtesy of reading the Bible before making decisions on what I should accept. As you know, there are many statements in the Bible that are quite unacceptable to Christians today. I'm sure you know where they are.

I appreciate your hints on how I might improve my style and method of debating. Am I to suppose that your model is the one to follow?

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 105 by marco]

Am I supposed to accept your constant sarcasm?

[marco]

[Replying to B Bob]

I think we are arguing about Christ and his glorified body and by extension the glorified bodies - with bones retained - of those who die.

Obviously I disagree with the mechanics of this interpretation of Scripture and if I take it with a pinch of salt I am not sure that this constitutes sarcasm. We must meet arguments as we see them, and deal with them with care and where possible with reference to Scripture. I cannot find any Scripture to support your theory of bloodless bodies entering heaven. I think that your theory dashes itself on the rocks of literal interpretation. You showed as much by taking the first few verses of Genesis in a literal way when obviously there were no observers, and so it can only be a poetic description of events.

There's no irony intended. I comment on what I read.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 107 by marco]

Are you claiming the glorified body of Christ is full of blood? If ao, do you have scriptures to support this claim?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 95 by marco]
And you just speculated a problem that you don't know if it applies to a glorified body

We first deal in practicalities before we move to the ethereal - surely. If you suppose that the blood was gone and a skeletal Christ walked around, the problem remains as to how Christ managed to get his solid bones through a solid door.

I grant that if Christ were merely a spirit, of no substance, then he could move however he chose. But let him retain bones and we have a problem still. He seems to have had a normally functioning body since he asked for food and consumed it.

Interesting.

How do you match what Christ said about his "flesh and bones" with what then happened, Marco??

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 109 by Checkpoint]

Practicalities? We are talking about God and the glorious power of God right? First lets us deal with that and consider anything is possible with God.