Re: Seeing a life-giving spirit with a camcorder

From: Blake J. Nelson <>
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 23:09:18 EDT

It's amazing how many things can be conflated when one either wants to
obfuscate, does not want to think particularly about such things, is unable
to or simply doesn't care.

Out of curiosity, when you say things like:

"These ex-Gentile Corinthians and new converts to Christianity must have
been baffled by sayings like 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of
God' which takes scholars like NT Wright years of training in Jewish
thought to decipher as meaning that flesh and blood *can* inherit the
Kingdom of God."

do you even bother to read or think about any of what Wright says about
what words and phrases used meant in the cultural and linguistic context
they were used (which fills substantial portions of Wright's works)? Or do
you prefer to think an ex-Gentile Corinthian understands what Paul was
saying in exactly the way you understand the translation you are
reading? Is that a good approach to understanding what something meant in
a different language 2,000 years ago?

Apparently you don't think about such things, or at least fail to address
them if you do, or you don't care, or it doesn't fit the point you want to
prove. I am impressed at the inconsistent selection of grab bag thoughts,
quotes and interpretations that mock rather than seek at least to
understand someone you still may disagree with once you understand what
they are saying. In my opinion, that's not a very useful approach for
trying to ascertain truth about any particular subject.

At 07:35 AM 10/19/2005, wrote:
> wrote:
> > You might note some nuances in what I wrote such as the difference between
> > "continuity" rather than "identity" and the phrase "in some sense."
Of course, but the Gospels have a Jesus who still had wounds.

>Hard to reconcile with the Epistles idea of our body as a tent or clothing
>that will be discarded come the Resurrection.
>2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long
>as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord.
>Paul can hardly have taught the Corinthians that after the resurrection
>they would still be in the same body which went into the ground.
>2 Peter 1
>13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the
>tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our
>Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
>Could the Lord Jesus Christ really have taught that the tent of our bodies
>will be put aside and then given back to us in a resurrected form?
>Surely the author of 2 Peter has no conception that the resurrected body
>which comes out of the ground will be the body which went into the ground.
>He thinks a resurrected body is a different body.
>Finally, the author of 1 Clement proves the resurrection by pointing out
>that when a Phoenix resurrects, the old bones are still there. Therefore,
>a discarded body proves a resurrection.
>What empty tomb?
Received on Wed Oct 19 23:12:01 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 23:12:01 EDT