> General Discussions
Spiritual body seperate from flesh
jerreye:
Hi Darren,
"a SPIRIT does NOT have flesh or bones..."
If the scriptures state that Jesus IS now a SPIRIT, then wouldn't this then prove that He is NOT (and for the sake of the integrity of the scriptures, CAN NOT be) literal flesh and bone?
"the last Adam was raised a life-giving (quickening) SPIRIT"
"neither flesh nor blood may enter into God's Kingdom..."
Does this not pass the two or three witness test of establishing a truth?
This is just how I see it, bro!
Deedle:
--- Quote ---I am not too certain what your stance is on the subject, Deedle. Do you believe that Jesus IS literal flesh and bones? Maybe I am miss-reading you Grin
If this verse is to be taken literally, then am I a LITERAL member (maybe a hang-nail?) of His LITERAL flesh (ie: "...we are MEMBERS of His flesh and of His bones")? I see that as being spiritual. I believe I am a member of His spiritual body (hopfully at least a spiritual hang-nail!).
Cheers,
Jeremy
--- End quote ---
I was just looking at how "flesh and bone" is used in scripture as opposed to "flesh and blood". It appears to me that "flesh and bone" or just "bone" for that matter has a much different spiritual significance than "flesh and blood" or "blood". Run "bone" & "bones" in esword and you will see what I mean. Since no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation (2Pe 1:20), I was just looking to see what other scriptures have to say on the matter.
Christ appeared after his resurection in a body of flesh and bones. No mention of blood. The soul of the flesh is in the blood.
Lev 17:11 For the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
I just think there is much more to the "flesh and bones" than meets the eye. I'll keep looking.
Also, the words "of his flesh, and of his bones" from Eph 5:30 is not authentic scripture according to some textual critics of the greek manuscripts. I thought that was interesting as well
Deedle :D
jerreye:
Hi Deedle, interesting indeed. Amazing how much "scripture" really isn't scripture at all.
Let us know what you come up with on your "flesh and bones" study. To me, it simply tells me that he did indeed shed His blood, therefore, all He appeared as was "flesh and bones". Interesting study for sure.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Brett:
--- Quote from: jerreye on July 26, 2006, 08:27:42 PM ---Hi all,
Isn't it true that Jesus did rise from the dead as a "life-giving SPIRIT"?
And, doesn't it say that a SPIRIT hath NOT flesh and bone (."..like you see/perceive that I/Jesus have.")?
I think if you add this all up, Jesus only APPEARED as a body of flesh and bone for the sake of the people. A natural man cannot see an invisible spirit being, thus Jesus had to APPEAR as a man of flesh and bone, so that men could actually perceive Him (not that He was literal flesh and bone). This is just what I see in the scriptures...is this what others here see as well?
Cheers,
Jeremy
--- End quote ---
Jeremy,
Yes that is what I see in the scriptures of what you see.
Brett
Brett:
--- Quote from: Deedle on July 26, 2006, 09:17:55 PM ---Eph 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Hmmmm...
Deedle :)
--- End quote ---
Hi Deedle,
Is this verse you show is from KJV? If so, I checked CLV and Rotherham. These were attempt straightforward from the Greek manuscript of Eph. 5:30,
CLV
for we are members of His body.
Rotherham's
Because, members, are we of his body;—
To me, the Greek manuscript didn't write 'flesh and bones' in Eph. 5:30 but 'body'. I doubt is literal flesh and bones.
Hope this help you.
Brett :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version