Doctrine of God

[B Bob]

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

[ttruscott]

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.

What is your proof of this that Humans in human form cannot get into heaven. ????

Heaven is not always just a place where the throne of GOD is but it is the experience within every believer after the wedding with the Son.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 111 by ttruscott]

It is not my position that humans, in human form cannot go to heaven. It is my position that humans, in a glorified and imperishable human form of the resurrection in Christ go to heaven.

The JW's like to quote 1 Cor 15:50 as proof that Jesus Christ is not God because He had a body of flesh and blood. However, it escapes their notice what the following four verses say. My position is 1 Cor 15:50-55 explains that a body of flesh and blood cannot enter heaven because it is perishable, therefore when we put on the imperishable body (resurrected in the glory of Christ), we have a body that is not made up of flesh and blood, being sustained by the flow of blood, but sustained by the Spirit that raises us from the dead.

The JW's argue that I cannot prove the resurrected Christ had a body that no longer operated by blood. However, if a perishable body is made up of flesh and blood, how could an imperishable body be flesh and blood? By the nature of being imperishable, it cannot be flesh and blood(aka the resurrected body of Jesus Christ). Therefore, knowing the resurrected Christ had a body of flesh and bone (without blood), means He could inherit the kingdom of heaven. Not only Him, but all of the resurrected in Christ.

The only way to reject this argument is to disregard the information in 1 Cor 15:50-55. They want to argue 15:50 as if Christ could not be God because He had a body of flesh and blood, by ignoring the following four verses. But Christ ascended to Heaven in a glorified and imperishable body of flesh and Spirit; Christ could do this because He is God, in the flesh, and He became the firstborn of the dead.

From what I have experienced so far, they will ignore the word of God and stick to scripture they believe is in contradiction to this. However, that is the primary mistake they make because the word of God does not contradict itself. If a contradiction seems to appear, something misunderstood. All scripture is inerrant and in harmony.

[marco]

[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?

Jesus who was seen after the resurrection is reported to have been exactly as he was in life; his wounds visible (therefore blood was there); and he ate, showing his digestive processes were operating.


Paul sees through his glass darkly and expounds on what his limited knowledge allows him to....

" 35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?� 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. "

The risen body seems to have all the appearance of what it was, including being filled with blood, but if flesh and blood cannot enter heaven is literal, then a glorified body is deceptively corporeal but in fact spiritual. We either go for the full human being or we accept that glorified means something supernatural, as it would have to be to penetrate walls. Removing blood and keeping bone is silly.

If I am pressed for an interpretation of "flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom" I take this to mean that humans, in their unchanged human form, cannot enter heaven. They must first die and then, transformed, are able to do so. I see nothing inconsistent in believing this and accepting Christ's words. Paul muddies the water a bit but as we see from the quoted passage he theorises, not entirely correctly, on the nature of different physical bodies.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 113 by marco]

If you read 1 Cor 15:50-54 it says the body of flesh and blood is perishable, but resurrected body is imperishable. Since we know the resurrected body of Christ is flesh and imperishable (see vs.57), then we know it cannot be made up of a perishable body of flesh and blood (thus, NO BLOOD). Since we will be like Him in the resurrection (1 John 3:2), we also will not have aperishable body of flesh and blood.

I hope this is now better explained.

[marco]

[Replying to post 113 by marco]

If you read 1 Cor 15:50-54 it says the body of flesh and blood is perishable, but resurrected body is imperishable. Since we know the resurrected body of Christ is flesh and imperishable (see vs.57), then we know it cannot be made up of a perishable body of flesh and blood (thus, NO BLOOD). Since we will be like Him in the resurrection (1 John 3:2), we also will not have a perishable body of flesh and blood.

I hope this is now better explained.

There is no line in 1 Cor 15: 50-54 that says the body of flesh and blood is perishable. I presume you are erroneously paraphrasing. We have no idea what the composition of a glorified body is, though it would seem to be exactly the same form as its previous self. Paul does not deny this since he makes no analysis of a glorified body.

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." I have already explained one interpretation of this is that humans, as they are, cannot enter heaven. Your biological concerns about the chemical elements in the body are matters beyond Paul's abilities and he does not presume to comment on them.

He does say: "neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." Later he says:
"This corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality."

He appears to be contradicting himself since these latter statements suggest that corruption does indeed inherit incorruption.

So let us agree that Paul, at best, is hard to interpret and to speak conclusively about bloodless bodies is taking things too literally.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 112 by B Bob]

QUOTE: He appears to be contradicting himself since these latter statements suggest that corruption does indeed inherit incorruption. UNQUOTE

MY RESPONSE: A red flag should be waved when we see something that appears to be contradictory in the scriptures. God does not contradict Himself, therefore, we need to know we have a lack of understanding, The scriptures are without error.

QUOTE: So let us agree that Paul, at best, is hard to interpret and to speak conclusively about bloodless bodies is taking things too literally. UNQUOTE

I agree Paul is sometimes hard to understand, but i don't agree he is this time. Paul makes it clear that an imperishable body cannot have blood.

I quote the scripture from the NASB as follows with my comments.

1 COR 15:50-54
50Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?� 5


Look at these two scriptures in context of each other. Paul is saying the body of flesh and blood is mortal and perishable (we all know this because we die and return to dust).

vs. 50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
vs. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Now look at vs. 52 in context with vs. 53 and vs. 54. It is clear Paul is talking about the mortal and perishable body of flesh and blood becoming imperishable. Therefore. if the body becomes imperishable, it CANNOT be a body of flesh and BLOOD. IT IS CHANGED!!!

vs. 52i n a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?�

[marco]

A red flag should be waved when we see something that appears to be contradictory in the scriptures. God does not contradict Himself, therefore, we need to know we have a lack of understanding, The scriptures are without error.

My understanding remains beautifully intact. Paul is not God. If he says the corrupt body cannot inherit incorruption THEN he says after the corrupt body has taken on an incorrupt body he is on the face of things contradicting himself.


Your repeated explanation reminds me of the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark: "What I tell you three times is true." Unfortunately this principle doesn't apply in theology.

I won't repeat myself three times by way of verification but I will say that it is anything but clear what Paul intended. To know, we would need to have the properties of a glorified body.

What you uphold may accord with what you think Paul says, but it contradicts Jesus, which is a greater flaw than mine. Jesus presented his body as seemingly unchanged; without blood he would have been unrecognisable and, I should imagine, incapable of enjoying a piece of fish. His glorified body has all the outward appearance of a normal body but is mystically changed. Arguments about bloodlessness belong to the field of vampires, not to Scripture.

There's nothing wrong with your believing in a glorified body, as far as theology goes; your preoccupation with the literal seems to let you down. When Christ says he is the vine, he is speaking figuratively, so figurative speech is hardly unknown in Scripture.
I suppose it must be confusing deciding when to acknowledge it.

[B Bob]

[Replying to marco]

Peter believed Paul's writings were from the mouth of God (meaning scripture)

You seem to not understand, that it doesn't matter who the writer is, the words int Bible (all of them) are spoken by God. Jesus said to the seventy, he that heareth you, heareth me. This was His attitude with all of the writers of scripture. I could provide proof of this if needed.

Unless you believe the word of God and what it says, then how can you believe what God has spoken?

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

Peter believed Paul's writings were from the mouth of God (meaning scripture)

You seem to not understand, that it doesn't matter who the writer is, the words int Bible (all of them) are spoken by God. Jesus said to the seventy, he that heareth you, heareth me. This was His attitude with all of the writers of scripture. I could provide proof of this if needed.

Unless you believe the word of God and what it says, then how can you believe what God has spoken?

I give you full marks for persistence. I have shown you that we can take varied interpretations, and so even when we accept that Paul is infallible, we then have the problem of interpreting. This gets us involved in examining language, translation and context. When Christ said to the repentant thief: "I tell you this day you shall be with me in Paradise," do we insert a comma after day or after you? It makes a big difference.

In the case under discussion you are clinging to the literal meaning of Paul's words while I, recognising Paul's scholarship, opt for a figurative one. We both end up with a glorified body, but mine has blood in it to give the semblance of what it was, just as Christ's body seemed to have. Flesh and blood are NOT entering heaven, but a body that is recognisable as what it was, with only the semblance of flesh and blood. This perfectly satisfies Paul's requirement.

As for the inerrancy of the Bible, which isn't relevant to what I said, if you look at the account of the post-resurrection scene you will see there are discrepancies in the reports from the evangelists. Minor, perhaps, but discrepancies nonetheless.

But it would be tedious to get into listing all areas of discrepancy and that would occupy another thread, if it hasn't already done so.

[B Bob]

[Replying to marco]

I give you high marks for persistence as well.

I understand what you are saying, but in this example, literally or figuratively makes no difference to the meaning and literal outcome of the resurrection.. The body of flesh and blood is perishable, not imperishable. Literally or figuratively it must be transformed into something other than flesh and blood to become imperishable. The figurative usage to put on the imperishable and immortality is to literally transform into the image and likeness of the glorious and resurrected Jesus Christ.

Your argument insists, literally or figuratively, the resurrected body will still be literally perishable because it will still be flesh and blood.

Myy argument concerning this scripture is in rebuttal to the JW claim Christ cannot be God because He was flesh and blood and still is flesh and blood. If He is not God, come in the flesh, then He cannot be King of King and Lord of Lords.