Philo – you say:

"His body was not eternal it was very mortal in that it experienced birth and death. That his mortal body was discarded 40 days after his wounding and his spirit returned to God indicated the importance of the nature of who he was."

Were does it say that His body was discarded 40 days after his wounding and his spirit returned to God...?

I thought the bible is clear that His new resurrected body - a perfect physical body - ascended to heaven in front of witnesses.

Where did you dig that notion of separation of this NEW body and his spirit spirit?

Isn't Jesus sitting at the right side of the father? Isn't He coming back In body form again?

Please give references to your above statement if you maintain its correctness.

The resurrected body thing is a contemptuous issue with some sects and most world religions. So clarity in this matter is imperative to a seeker of the truth.

And while you are there can you re-explain to us your understanding of Lordship – as “Jesus to a believer is Lord and Saviour”.

Appreciate your input on OLO mate and no disrespect intended.

Ghouss and Ghousss is the same person. I had to make another account to post that much yesterday, and I think today I would need to make third account. 2 post in a day is just simply too little, specially when you’re not online on exact same time.

Coach, as I said before, I quit church to find out these facts by my way. It might not be the best or ideal solution, but I found that this was one step that I had to take. Choices are never easy.

You seems to be very sure of Christianity, are you willing to say all other religions are wrong? And is that why you would wage the holy war?

You were saying that muslem was completely different to Christianity. How different was it?

Would you agree with my analogy of “I’m giving you option to perish or follow my way?”

Quote: ‘Maybe you mean “God created man in His image” which is not the same thing as being His equal.’
I, myself, find this annoyingly suspicious, and leads back to the original question that I raised. The more I think of this, the more confused I get (about 5 years now). What was the reason for god to create earth, us, or anything. He doesn’t have to do it, since He’s the creator. So to create humans and tell them that the only way of salvation is by believing in him, what is the purpose of that? The answer of no one knows is not good enough for me. I believe even the pope doesn’t have the answer for this. I have had negative days where I think the reason for this was to amuse himself by toying with us. But as human being who believes in a God, I couldn’t bear myself to think of this, since I would have no purpose in life other than a toy

I get your answers of the other question. 1 more thing, God was powerful, creator, etc. why can’t he obliterate evil or devil or lucifer, etc and make us only have one and only way of believing in him. Specially when he care for each and every one of us, and don’t want us to perish.

Philo, to accept the character and actions of Jesus would then means the existence of presence of god, right? So for someone who completely believe and accept Jesus and action, would he be a Christian then? And as coach had said, isn’t the body of Jesus ascended to heaven and sits to the right side of our Father? Discarded sounds like jesus was a prophet, not saviour imo (=in my opinion). Which leads back to my original question about father, son and holy spirit. Why would God, split himself into two? If not, what is the purpose of jesus as the son be ascended to heaven, sit besides God, unless it was only his body without spirit. But then why does the bible wrote that Jesus would rule “something” (after life or something similar if I’m not mistaken). Certainly God won’t need a helper, would he?

Rainier, by god you’ll know it? How? Is it by believing without seeing methodical? I don’t really understand what you wrote with the typo error as well. Why would you say this OLO site is work of the devil and what is OLO actually?

i probably reply the reply on Monday. Almost had no time for net on weekend

Coach,
Flesh and blood are not the nature of the spiritual or God. Christ does not make our mortal bodies immortal he transports us into a spiritual state. Jesus body was not changed till he ascended as he said himself when he appeared before the disciples post-resurrection that he was not a spirit. His body HAD NOT CHANGED as he bore the very scars of his wounding [John 20: 20]. God is spirit [not spatial creation]. Christ is fully recognised now as the very spirit of God revealed in flesh [incarnation in the body of Jesus] and those that accept him as God [incarnate him in their life] upon this they now bow to him as Lord. [Lord is a Roman term for having sovereignty or rule over]. In that sense we are submitting our self determined character, attitudes and actions to follow his pure character, attitudes and actions. Actions he said we will achieve greater than him. Christ is not in a spatial flesh and blood presence of God as a created form [NOTE: 1 Corinthians 15: 42 - 51].

Do you believe Jesus is now flesh and blood? Jesus claimed after his resurrection he was still flesh and bones [Luke 24: 37]. He is not now flesh and bones but the Spirit that indwells his followers. Christ sitting on the throne is the image of Christ seated in the true place of devotion in the heart of man [Romans 8: 9 - 11], not in some remote spatial heaven.

The spatial terms used of describing the spiritual is synomous with familiar ideas we recognise within the spatial. Christ as Lord on the right hand of God has reference to his authority not to some spatial concept where we see two persons. No one can claim to own Jesus as their Lord and live a selfish, self seeking and violent life

Philo,
You have expressed Paul's ideas of Jesus admirably. You have learnt your lessons well. You have also quoted only Paul to back up your arguments (and John to back up the fact of Jesus' earthly substance). Your duallist view is Gnostic as was Paul's and deviates in so many ways from Jewish belief I wouldn't quite know where to start.
Now, given this theology of Paul, can you now see how the Gospel writers would have treated a real life story about a walking talking Jesus? No need for a wife or sex, for this person is a walking talking God. The Hellenistic world was very familiar with walking talking Gods and many Roman Emperors promoted this idea about themselves.
What actually is different about Jesus?
Resurrection? Other gods claimed this
Lamb of god type sacrifice? Others claimed this
Son of god? many claimed this but I'm not so sure about Jesus claiming it.
Jesus teachings? I can't think of anything Jesus said that was unique.
Why have you rejected all other claims and believe Paul

Priscillian, now that you mention those part, i just realise that it was true. what i know from christianity is that they offer salvation through jesus christ, the son of god that has sent to earth as human saviour, and the saying that coach wrote before about one but free choice, which is to believe and accept Jesus as saviour.

philo, jesus ascend to right hand of god is an analogy of his authority. right hand = less authority than god? and what is his authority? didn't he say that we would also ascend to the right hand of god in the end of age (i have a bit vague memory of this, trying to confirm something here)?

in the end of age, didn't the bible say something about the believer will ascend to somewhere and face the judgement of jesus (was it?) ? and i also got taught from my church that in the end of age we will rule heaven together with Jesus and that angel would be our servant. any lights on this? this paragraph came from vague memory, so i'd like confirmation first