You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk - Page 75

Hesetmefree238 · #**741** 04-09-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

However, my presentation was far more than a cry of "Moot." It was a detailed explanation of how the thought that Christ retained wounds, causing Him to be imperfect in body, was incorrect because prophecy predicted He was marred more than any man. This implies He had FAR MORE wounds than nail prints and spear wound. He was not so pristine in His wounding as you imply He was with only some holes in hands, feet and side. So what happened to all the other wounds?

Must I quote that verse in order to validate my post as one that quotes verses, for I thought all would readily recall what verse I referred to? But here goes:

Isaiah 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

More than one person has been crucified with nails in hands and feet, and spear in side. So how would mere holes in hands and feet and wound in his side be a marring more than any man? Isaiah's prophecy describes such mangling in His body that demands Christ have far more apparent visible wounds than just his hands and feet! What happened to them?

When you say his possession of hand wounds and feet wounds and a side wound show his imperfection in His resurrected body, implying it was not a spiritual body, makes a further implication that whatever wounds He was given remained. You claim a spiritual body, if it was physical, would have all wounds healed and gone, or simply vanished! However, that implies, in turn, that HE HAD NO OTHER WOUNDS FROM THE ORDEAL, which is not true at all, since the bible describes torture that would require far more VISIBLE wounds than just in his hands. feet and side! In fact, the bible describes his torture in ways that would obviously not require Jesus to direct anyone to any other part of His body than the fact hey were looking at, for his cheeks and brow would be butchered with wounds.

This proves that your implication that Christ was imperfect in body after the resurrection, and, therefore, still mortal, incorrect.

But, lo, all we read is:

John 20:27 KJV Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

He could have told Thomas to simply look at his face, for we read,

Isaiah 50:6 KJV I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

But obviously everyone was looking at nothing indicating damage on his face. So somehow the wounds from the face were gone! How? Should not ALL the wounds remain, if his body was IMPERFECT because wounds were still there? Unless, of course... something miraculous occurred concerning the vanishing of some wounds and retention of others.

Isaiah's prophecy would indicate torn flesh would have remained on his face. But not so! Why?

And what about his brow? For we read:

Matthew 27:29 KJV And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

They all saw His brow and -- voila! -- no marks! Surely we all agree the long thorns of the crown should have left some sort of deep holes, leaving no time for scarring, since the mortal body was dead for three days, only freshly risen and mortal still, if your implication of the visible wounds meant Her retained ALL the wounds He had from the experience, and not that Christ CHOSE to retain certain wounds.

Please respond to my note about how MORTAL WOUNDS still existing in his body, had it still been mortal, would disallow that body from continuing to live! Those wounds already killed it once!

Think of it, brother. If Jesus' body was still mortal, consider the implications. How long was it that He showed the disciples His hands and feet after He arose? And note that when a body is dead, it ceases to bleed. No healing occurs. The heart no longer pumps blood out of the body. It lay dead for three days and nights. Then it arises WITH MORTAL LIFE AGAIN, when no scarring had time to occur, and bleeding would once again begin, and bring immediate death to Him one more time!

Or did he receive some sort of divine miracle that caused the blood vessels to be reconnected around the wounds, to no longer bleed out? Not so imperfect in other ways, after all, is it?

Rest assured, it was an immortal spiritual body He arose with. The few wounds of all He had could only have been intentionally retained. We should realize that with a little more thought.

Very well stated and thought out.

Steve Epley · #**742** 04-09-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hesetmefree238

What is it about FIRSTFRUITS that some people don't understand. It is
saying that he has set the example for us of what constitutes the
Christian's resurrection. We will be resurrected bodily as Christ was.

St Luke 24:38-40
38And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

Christ was resurrected in bodily form. He was the firstfruits. He was raised
with an incorruptible body just as we will have when we are resurrected.

1 John 3:2
2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

We will be resurrected just like the Lord was, and we will be transformed into
his image.

Amen.

Steve Epley · #**743** 04-09-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The word IMMORTAL means it cannot die and is not corruptible. When Jesus arose, He had the same wounds that killed His mortal body. If His body was still mortal, it would have died as soon as it was given life, for the MORTAL wounds were not healed. They were mortal wounds because they killed that body. Mortified it.

When the widow woman's son's mortal body was resurrected and remained mortal, the affliction that killed it was healed along with the regained natural life. He did not still have the affliction. When Lazarus was raised, his affliction was healed as well as being given life again.

Christ's risen body was not mortal. It was immortal due to the wounds remaining that formerly killed it when it was mortal. The wounds remaining help prove the body was rendered immortal.

That last statement expects us to accept the thought that SPIRITUAL means NON-PHYSICAL, which is not the case. If SPIRITUAL means NON-PHYSICAL, then everytime the word Spiritual is used, it contrasts something not physical from something that is, itself, physical matter. But that fails because 1 Cor 2 speaks of the natural man as well as the spiritual man. And this is not speaking of physical men contrasted from non-physical men.

This is indeed an erring hermeneutic. Paul did not imply that immortal means invisible. He added the thought that God is not just immortal but is also invisible. He could not leave it with God simply being described as immortal, but had to add the thought that God is a Spirit and no man has ever seen God. Hence, invisible. John also commented on this when he wrote 1 John 4 saying God was never seen by anyone, and that was true after Jesus Christ walked the earth. What does this imply? The flesh they saw was NOT GOD. GOD was manifest IN FLESH. Pure Deity cannot be seen.

Paul was not speaking of the Son of God to Timothy. This connection is, therefore, merely apples and oranges. Also, if that was not your point, Paul was not saying "immortal" means "invisible". And not everything invisible is immortal either. A thought is invisible, but not immortal. Oxygen is invisible, but not immortal. To say that a list that presents the words "immortal" and "invisible" together somehow implies nothing visible can be immortal, as in your implication of the list when you claim flesh and blood do not allow that association, is faulty logic. Does being "ONLY WISE" also mean invisible just because it is listed in the same list as immortal and invisible?

...More severely erring implications.

Immortal is used as an adjective in Paul's words. An adjective is not the noun any more than immortal is a physical body. But an adjective describes a condition of the noun used as an object or subject to which it is joined in grammar in order to further clarify our understanding of that subject or object. Hence, a physical body can be immortal or incorruptible.

The PHYSICAL BODY of the angel of the Lord with which Jacob wrestled was IMMORTAL but very visible.

Bro. Epley, you are correct.

Amen.

Steve Epley · #**744** 04-09-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

FIRSTFRUITS used in 1 cor 15 is not used to distinguish visible from invisible, but rather one instance FIRST IN TIME BEFORE the rest of the harvest, and a notion of pre-eminance. Hence, Paul does not use the contrasting terms of visible versus invisible, as though to say, "1 Corinthians 15:23 KJV (23) But every man in his own category of seen or not seen: Christ the firstfruits visible; and the invisible who are Christ's at his coming." but rather says, "1 Corinthians 15:23 KJV (23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." it is an issue of TIME when harvests are gathered alone. And the firstfruits were honoured as a pledge of what will come later, in the exact same form and manner the first were gathered. FIRSTFRUITS, therefore, implies that there is an initial harvest that guarantees many identicals to follow.

Grain showcased before the people does not mean the rest of the grain was invisible and not physical. Even in grain, that thought is not correct. They were both physical during and after firstfruits, but the firstfruits had a special presentation alone. This in no wise implies physical versus non-physical.

Nothing could have "resurrected" in AD70, even if spirits left physical bodies, because "resurrection" means something that lived and then died, lived a second time, or came BACK.

Amen.

Steve Epley · #**745** 04-09-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Counting how many scriptures one uses in order to determine who has presented more truth is not that reliable. I can provide many scriptures if you feel that counting scriptures determines the winner of an argument.

We cannot bypass all that a person says about the reason Jesus had wounds and make this sort of statement.

I think my argument was good, since it left you unable to respond to each point, as with my IKOS/INOS suffix argument elsewhere.

However, my presentation was far more than a cry of "Moot." It was a detailed explanation of how the thought that Christ retained wounds, causing Him to be imperfect in body, was incorrect because prophecy predicted He was marred more than any man. This implies He had FAR MORE wounds than nail prints and spear wound. He was not so pristine in His wounding as you imply He was with only some holes in hands, feet and side. So what happened to all the other wounds?

Must I quote that verse in order to validate my post as one that quotes verses, for I thought all would readily recall what verse I referred to? But here goes:

Isaiah 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

More than one person has been crucified with nails in hands and feet, and spear in side. So how would mere holes in hands and feet and wound in his side be a marring more than any man? Isaiah's prophecy describes such mangling in His body that demands Christ have far more apparent visible wounds than just his hands and feet! What happened to them?

When you say his possession of hand wounds and feet wounds and a side wound show his imperfection in His resurrected body, implying it was not a spiritual body, makes a further implication that whatever wounds He was given remained. You claim a spiritual body, if it was physical, would have all wounds healed and gone, or simply vanished! However, that implies, in turn, that HE HAD NO OTHER WOUNDS FROM THE ORDEAL, which is not true at all, since the bible describes torture that would require far more VISIBLE wounds than just in his hands. feet and side! In fact, the bible describes his torture in ways that would obviously not require Jesus to direct anyone to any other part of His body than the fact hey were looking at, for his cheeks and brow would be butchered with wounds.

This proves that your implication that Christ was imperfect in body after the resurrection, and, therefore, still mortal, incorrect.

But, lo, all we read is:

John 20:27 KJV Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

He could have told Thomas to simply look at his face, for we read,

Isaiah 50:6 KJV I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

But obviously everyone was looking at nothing indicating damage on his face. So somehow the wounds from the face were gone! How? Should not ALL the wounds remain, if his body was IMPERFECT because wounds were still there? Unless, of course... something miraculous occurred concerning the vanishing of some wounds and retention of others.

Isaiah's prophecy would indicate torn flesh would have remained on his face. But not so! Why?

And what about his brow? For we read:

Matthew 27:29 KJV And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

They all saw His brow and -- voila! -- no marks! Surely we all agree the long thorns of the crown should have left some sort of deep holes, leaving no time for scarring, since the mortal body was dead for three days, only freshly risen and mortal still, if your implication of the visible wounds meant Her retained ALL the wounds He had from the experience, and not that Christ CHOSE to retain certain wounds.

Please respond to my note about how MORTAL WOUNDS still existing in his body, had it still been mortal, would disallow that body from continuing to live! Those wounds already killed it once!

Think of it, brother. If Jesus' body was still mortal, consider the implications. How long was it that He showed the disciples His hands and feet after He arose? And note that when a body is dead, it ceases to bleed. No healing occurs. The heart no longer pumps blood out of the body. It lay dead for three days and nights. Then it arises WITH MORTAL LIFE AGAIN, when no scarring had time to occur, and bleeding would once again begin, and bring immediate death to Him one more time!

Or did he receive some sort of divine miracle that caused the blood vessels to be reconnected around the wounds, to no longer bleed out? Not so imperfect in other ways, after all, is it?

Rest assured, it was an immortal spiritual body He arose with. The few wounds of all He had could only have been intentionally retained. We should realize that with a little more thought.

Amen.

mfblume · #**746** 04-09-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I really don't need you to paste pages of PRE-WRITTEN ARTICLES here.

Haha. Brother, I have to say you gave a good touché here.

Steve Epley · #**747** 04-09-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Respectfully, Elder Epley your stuff is in storage? I just don't know what to tell you. I really don't need you to paste pages of PRE-WRITTEN ARTICLES here. I'm just asking you to produce with chapter and verse an explanation for Revelation 11:2-3.

With all due respect, weren't you the one who claims that Brothers Blume and Burk only produce pre-written material? Yet, it is fine when you produce pre-written material? I'm asking you to please present an explanation for Revelation 11:2-3, if it is a physical future temple that is in our immediate future explain why? Or if it is symbolic please explain why using chapter and verse. I think that is only fair and right for you to give an explanation, since you are holding a position that we are wrong for believing the book of Revelation is dated prior to 70 AD.

I'm asking you what you believe, and what you preach.
Now Elder, trying to get you to cooperate and answer this question is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Really, and we have a whole web site.

Elder Epley, please explain how Revelation 11:2-3 is a future physical temple, or if it is not then please explain with chapter and verse how it is symbolic.

You wouldn't let any Apostolic Brother who believed in Fulfilled Eschatology off the hook when you think they aren't answering the questions.

Brother Burk answered every question posed to him in this thread and in the eschatology forum. He will soon be back in a debate with Brother Anderson (the student of Jerry Falwell).

Elder with all due respect, and please don't misunderstand me, if you can only offer Brother James Anderson, and a book from Elder Chalfant, then allow me to suggest that you sit this one out. If you want to continue in a discussion on eschatology, then please offer a defense for what you believe.
Elder Epley God love Elder and Sister Chalfant and the Leavenworth Church, but telling me to read his book still doesn't explain what you believe.
Or are you telling us that what ever Brother Anderson or Elder Chalfant comes up with you will agree and sign it?

With respect

In JESUS NAME

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

My friend though we have never agreed on this subject you have always been fair. But this is NOT fair. All my resource material is in storage how can I cite what I do not have in front of me? That is NOT a dodge I am being honest. However Elder Andersen is citing sources and I recomended Elder Chalfant's writings on the subject concerning the dating of Revelation and you chide me? You know perfectly well I would NOT sign a blank signature on everything anyone would write.
I have answered you about the temple to the best of my understanding I am saying might or maybe because I am not ashamed to say I am not sure? Elder Burk did NOT attempt to answer ANY question given him he could have said I am not sure but did he NO he chose to observe the passover on EVERY question submitted to him.

mfblume · #**748** 04-09-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote: