Ken's latest reply to me suggested that when Christians go to heaven
they will still need food. Whilst none of us know what Heaven will be
like I never envisaged that you would still have a mortal body.-a The
only reason we eat food is because our bodies would die without it. On a spiritual plane far beyond this Earth would that be the case?
So what will life be like "up" there? Certain things are a given, no
more pain or suffering, no getting old. Presumably a nice resurrected
body, but will this body be a physical body?
And what will people do all day, will there even be a day timewise? Will people get bored millenia in, milllenia out?I suggest that we will fulfil the role for which God originally created
On 28/05/2026 13:34, John wrote:
Ken's latest reply to me suggested that when Christians go to heaven
they will still need food. Whilst none of us know what Heaven will be
like I never envisaged that you would still have a mortal body.-a The
only reason we eat food is because our bodies would die without it. On
a spiritual plane far beyond this Earth would that be the case?
Would you care to define this wonderful "spiritual plane"? Or are they
just meaningless words you have picked up somewhere? Exactly how
spiritual does a lion have to be to gain admittance to this wonderful "spiritual plane"? What about asps? Is church attendance required of
them? Do they have to hiss hymns every Sunday?
And why do you think that we would not have physical bodies when Jesus ascended bodily into heaven? Is He going to be the only solid, physical Being in heaven with the rest of us floating around and through Him.
And don't you think that all that fruit, fallen and rotting from the
Tree of Life because no one eats it, is going to detract from the beauty
of this "spiritual plane"? And exactly how do these ghostly spiritual
beings apply the leaves from that same tree in order to be healed?
So what will life be like "up" there? Certain things are a given, no
more pain or suffering, no getting old. Presumably a nice resurrected
body, but will this body be a physical body?
It will hardly be "resurrected" if it is not physical?
The lion shall lie down with the lamb, but is that literally or metaphorically? Is Heaven an "earthly" existence or a spiritual one? I
would say spiritual, because Christians who have passed away will/are residing in Heaven, are they not?
Where exactly is Heaven, Do you think that the body Jesus left this
earth in is still the same body He has in Heaven?-a Far from it according
to Revelation.
Why ghostly?-a Heaven is somewhere above us as far as we know, but we
can't see it.-a Spiritual plane is no doubt bad wording on my part, but would you not agree Heaven is a spiritual (as in we can't see it) realm?
Chrisians will certainly have a new body, but will it be a physical one?The Christian hope, as expressed in the creeds, is "the resurrection of
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:44 Christians that the resurrected body
will be a spiritual one.
On 30/05/2026 00:21, John wrote:
The lion shall lie down with the lamb, but is that literally or
metaphorically? Is Heaven an "earthly" existence or a spiritual one? I
would say spiritual, because Christians who have passed away will/are
residing in Heaven, are they not?
You do realise that that belief is incompatible with the traditional Christian hope contained in all the creeds, "I believe in the
resurrection of the body"? It is also contrary to the clear statements
of Scripture, "the living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything" and "the dead praise not the Lord".
Where exactly is Heaven, Do you think that the body Jesus left this
earth in is still the same body He has in Heaven?-a Far from it
according to Revelation.
You mean, you think that Jesus is now actually a lamb that had been slain?
Christian belief is that Jesus retains His incarnate body. I decline to speculate on all the implications of that belief, but there is not doubt that He ascended bodily into heaven.
Why ghostly?-a Heaven is somewhere above us as far as we know, but we
can't see it.-a Spiritual plane is no doubt bad wording on my part, but
would you not agree Heaven is a spiritual (as in we can't see it) realm?
It depends on what you mean by "spiritual". If you mean that it is not
part of this physical universe, I am inclined to agree. If you mean that
it is all fuzzy and transparent and inhabited by spirits (ghosts), I disagree.
We know that spirits inhabit this physical earth, even though we can't
see them - angels both good and bad. We know that in heaven there will
be plants (the Tree of Life) and rivers. We know that several physical beings are up there - Jesus, Elijah, Enoch - and apparently have not
fallen through the streets of gold. We are given hints that animals will
be there (though I admit those hints could equally refer to the New Earth).
Just because we can't see them doesn't mean that angels are not
intensely real. Purely as an illustration: suppose that angels only reflected ultra-violet light and were transparent to ordinary wave-
lengths of light. They could walk among us and we would never detect
their presence.
Or, given that atoms are mostly empty space, imagine that angels were
half an atom to the right (I don't know-a how else to express it). They could walk right through you without in any way disturbing your physical body!
Chrisians will certainly have a new body, but will it be a physical one?The Christian hope, as expressed in the creeds, is "the resurrection of
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:44 Christians that the resurrected body
will be a spiritual one.
the body", a genuine, real, solid, physical body.
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul was marshalling every argument he could think
of to support that belief, and, of course, using the "scientific" facts
at his disposal. He was arguing with people who, perhaps like yourself,
had all sorts of kooky ideas about this "spiritual plane".
Do you agree with him that "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there
is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes,
and another of birds"? Or do you accept that animals, birds and fish are pretty much the same as us as far as physical make-up is concerned?
(After all, unless you are a Creationist, you believe that we are merely another species of ape!)
Apply the same criterion to Paul's claim that "there is a natural body
and there is a spiritual body". Your resurrected body will differ from
your physical body to pretty much the same extent that your present body differs from that of a chimpanzee. (Clue: it doesn't.)
On 31/05/2026 13:10, John wrote:
But if you are correct that the dead no nothing, how do you explain
Revelation 7:9-12?
I think the word you are looking for is "know". I don't know what
difficulty you perceived in that passage? Chapter 6 ends with the
Second Coming, chapter 7 refers to those who are resurrected at the
Second Coming.
As an aside, do you belive the Word (pre-Jesus) was Spirit or aJesus was God. It was only at the incarnation that He became man.
bodily existence?
I wouldn't say fuzzy, but certainly I would say it's a spiritual
realm rather than a physical one. To those occupying that realm, it
will be real of course, but on a different dimension to the physical
realm humans inhabit.
Again, please define what you mean by "spiritual realm". I'm betting
that you can't;
How did Elijah and Enoch (and by assumption Moses) get into Heaven
if flesh and blood can't enter it?
Mortal flesh and blood can't, so they underwent the same change as St
Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15. Which does not involve them
becoming spirits, but does restore them to the condition Adam and Eve
enjoyed before they sinned.
Interestingly you say spirits inhabit the Earth, which is furtherWhich would be the case if heavenly beings only reflected ultra violet
proof that Heaven is a spiritual existence.
light but could, on occasion, allow themselves to reflect the full
spectrum of light.
In short, I have no idea how they do it or what "spirit" is - but
neither do you.
So you're saying the new body will still be physical, wheras Paul
says it will be spiritual. The same Greek word for spiritual is used
in Chapter 10:3-4. Did the Israelites actually eat and drink, or was
it spiritual fortification?
You have just undermined your argument. The manna was certainly
physical food, but Paul calls it "spiritual".
The rock which Moses
struck was certainly physical, but Paul calls it "spiritual".
The resurrected body will certainly be physical, even though Paul
calls it "spiritual".
come on Ken, surely you know John meant Rev. 6:9-12
This is one example of the forced confusion from adopting the trinity
clause of the apostles creed without understanding what you are
affirming.
John should know that The "direct-object" references in the old
testament are believed by some to be references to the "pre-incarnate"
Jesus (visits to Abraham)
Paul uses it as a known and existing category.
It is no better than "please define what you mean by "trinity""
I think Paul is making an argument (like you make arguments) but 10:4
has to be understood in the context of John 6:32-35.
While I believe that the resurrected body will be physical, I don'tThen perhaps you would like to put forward your own arguments?
think it is adduced from the arguments you are making here (to undermine John's points)
This is one example of the forced confusion from adopting the trinityInsofar as the doctrine of the Trinity is comprehensible, I think I
clause of the apostles creed without understanding what you are
affirming.
have a pretty good grasp of it.
Paul uses it as a known and existing category.
Maybe, but I am asking what John means.
It is no better than "please define what you mean by "trinity""
I can easily tell you what I mean by "Trinity".
I think Paul is making an argument (like you make arguments) but 10:4
has to be understood in the context of John 6:32-35.
I agree that Paul is making an argument and his words are not to be
taken literally.
While I believe that the resurrected body will be physical, I don'tThen perhaps you would like to put forward your own arguments?
think it is adduced from the arguments you are making here (to undermine
John's points)
As long as you also have a pretty good grasp of the contradictions.
I don't think John has a problem with a physical resurrection as much as
you have a problem with a "spiritual" resurrection.
Personally I don't insist on the limitations of "physics we know it, or rather as what the western banking world of science limits it to be for
the maintanence of the present dispensation/economy.
On another note, I believe written descriptions of Heaven in the
scripture are not reliable, they were made in the context of "heathen" conceptions and speculations of heaven at that time.
Coming from Hinduism which embraces the gamut of conceptions andA very good reason for suggesting that you pick either Hinduism or Christianity; you cannot have both.
speculations of heaven, i see some wisdom in not endorsing one or
another view of it, but not for the sake of fostering debates and speculation.
On 31/05/2026 13:10, John wrote:
Do you also believe everything is meaningless?
I have certainly felt that way at times, though I always take refuge in Solomon's final conclusion at the end of his book.
If you're relying on Ecclesiastes and Psalms for your doctrine then I
think your argument is weak.
I used to think so too, but then I realised that while the prophets were busy condemning the sins of the people, it was the poets who dealt with
the big themes of life and death. Isaiah also says that the dead do not praise God and Job not only states that the dead are unaware of events
on earth but triumphantly affirms his belief in the resurrection.
But if you are correct that the dead no nothing, how do you explain
Revelation 7:9-12?
I think the word you are looking for is "know". I don't know what
difficulty you perceived in that passage? Chapter 6 ends with the Second Coming, chapter 7 refers to those who are resurrected at the Second Coming.
We know Almighty God is Spirit, presumably so is The Holy Spirit, why
do you think incarnate Jesus would be any different?
Er - because He is incarnate?
The language used by John in Revelation is symbolic of course, but if
Heaven isn't a physical place, how would the flesh and blood of Jesus
get there?
I think that is an argument in my favour, actually. Thank you for making
it.
Actually, I don't believe that "Revelation is symbolic". Revelation uses symbols, but when - for example - it says that the dragon persecuted the woman, both dragon and woman are symbols but I don't think we need to agonise over what "persecuted" symbolises.
Did He have white hair when he was on Earth?-a What happened when He no
longer had oxygen to breathe?
No, neither did He have feet of molten bronze. Those are just words with which John attempts to describe the glory of his former Friend. What is
your Biblical reference for the assertion that there is no oxygen in
heaven?
FWIW I believe (should such an event have occurred), that the body He
departed with, will have gone through a change which meant being able
to enter Heaven, changing from physical to spiritual, maybe shredding
the physical body.
It is interesting that when St Paul describes the change we will undergo
at the resurrection, he does not say "this mortal shall put on
immortality and this physical shall put on spirituality." Our bodies do
not "become spiritual" (whatever nonsense that may mean), they become incorruptible and immortal.
As an aside, do you belive the Word (pre-Jesus) was Spirit or a bodily
existence?
Jesus was God. It was only at the incarnation that He became man.
I wouldn't say fuzzy, but certainly I would say it's a spiritual realm
rather than a physical one. To those occupying that realm, it will be
real of course, but on a different dimension to the physical realm
humans inhabit.
Again, please define what you mean by "spiritual realm". I'm betting
that you can't; you are just making a mish-mash of words to try and
express your disbelief in the Christian teaching of "I believe in the resurrection of the body."
How did Elijah and Enoch (and by assumption Moses) get into Heaven if
flesh and blood can't enter it?
Mortal flesh and blood can't, so they underwent the same change as St
Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15. Which does not involve them becoming spirits, but does restore them to the condition Adam and Eve enjoyed
before they sinned.
Interestingly you say spirits inhabit the Earth, which is further
proof that Heaven is a spiritual existence.
The logic of your "proof" escapes me.
I do agree with Paul there,
You believe that animal flesh is different from human flesh? We have
genes and they don't, we need oxygen and they don't, we eat and drink
but they don't?
We can see birds, animals and fish, but we can't see the Heavenly
beings, unless they choose to manifest as humans (eg angels showing
themselves in human form in the OT)
Which would be the case if heavenly beings only reflected ultra violet
light but could, on occasion, allow themselves to reflect the full
spectrum of light.
In short, I have no idea how they do it or what "spirit" is - but
neither do you.
So you're saying the new body will still be physical, wheras Paul says
it will be spiritual. The same Greek word for spiritual is used in
Chapter 10:3-4. Did the Israelites actually eat and drink, or was it
spiritual fortification?
You have just undermined your argument. The manna was certainly physical food, but Paul calls it "spiritual". The rock which Moses struck was certainly physical, but Paul calls it "spiritual". The resurrected body
will certainly be physical, even though Paul calls it "spiritual"
* "Kendall K. Down" <10vi5p0$1pam3$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 31 May 2026 21:30:24 +0100:
On 31/05/2026 13:10, John wrote:
But if you are correct that the dead no nothing, how do you explain
Revelation 7:9-12?
I think the word you are looking for is "know". I don't know what
difficulty you perceived in that passage? Chapter 6 ends with the
Second Coming, chapter 7 refers to those who are resurrected at the
Second Coming.
come on Ken, surely you know John meant Rev. 6:9-12
As an aside, do you belive the Word (pre-Jesus) was Spirit or aJesus was God. It was only at the incarnation that He became man.
bodily existence?
This is one example of the forced confusion from adopting the trinity
clause of the apostles creed without understanding what you are
affirming.
John should know that The "direct-object" references in the old
testament are believed by some to be references to the "pre-incarnate"
Jesus (visits to Abraham)
On 01/06/2026 04:13, Madhu wrote:
John should know that The "direct-object" references in the old
testament are believed by some to be references to the "pre-incarnate"
Jesus (visits to Abraham)
I have even heard it speculated that the three "men" who visited Abraham were, in fact, the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.
On 01/06/2026 07:28, Madhu wrote:
As long as you also have a pretty good grasp of the contradictions.
Of course. The most basic being, "How can three be one?" (or the other
way round). There are bound to be contradictions when we are talking
about God.
I don't think John has a problem with a physical resurrection as much as
you have a problem with a "spiritual" resurrection.
I don't, but in order to get to a spiritual realm, I believe it has to
be a spiritual body. That said, if there is to be a ressurection, then
in a sense it will be physical to those who are resurrected, but
invisble to the present human eye.-a In other words they will all see
each other as real.-a I see it akin to how Paul describes it in 2 Thessalonians 4
I can't envisage millions of Christians physically flying through the
air to meet their Lord on the way to Heaven, you know, the one in space somewhere where oxygen doesn't exist.
That said, I don't discount a bodily resurrection where Christians don
new physical bodies that are immortal, but one wonders why God hasn't
done it much sooner, and ended the misery and suffering that millions experience daily, and would save billions from going to hell.
A further question (to Ken mainly).-a Will non believers also don new resurected bodies in order to meet their fate?Obviously the wicked will have "resurrection bodies" or rather,
I hope you don't believe that (and I've heard it said as well)I neither believe nor disbelieve. All we are told is that there were
If that's true, and I have heard it said, then Jesus is YHWH, because
that is the Hebrew word the writer used.
If it is true, then who is the Father?The First Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus the Second, the Holy
If chapter 7 is after the ressurection, how come there are still people inhabiting the Earth? Chapter 20 is when the first ressurection takes
place.
Doesn't answer the question.-a Why can't incarnate Jesus go back to being Spirit God?
Because once you ascend into the clouds oxygen becomes thinner, and eventually ceases to exist. Can you breathe without oxygen in space?
It is interesting that when St Paul describes the change we will
undergo at the resurrection, he does not say "this mortal shall put on
immortality and this physical shall put on spirituality." Our bodies
do not "become spiritual" (whatever nonsense that may mean), they
become incorruptible and immortal.
Paul in verse 44 disagrees with you.
So Spirit then, thanks for clearing that up.-a So God Almighty, Spirit, became flesh and blood, then ascended to Heaven as flesh and blood? Does that mean we now have two Gods in Heaven?
Is the creator of the Universe Spirit or flesh? If Spirit, which the
bible confirms, does He live in a physical realm or a spiritual realm.
That's the best I can offer.
You made that bit up didn't you? There's no biblical source to support
it.-a All we know is that Enoch was here, then he wasn't, and that Elijah was caught up in a whirlwind.
I'll forgive the snipping, but you said there are Spirits on the Earth,
some good (angels?) and some bad (demons?) Both will have come from
Heaven, so is Heaven a spiritual realm or a physical one?
Bloody hell Ken, more snipping, and this time dishonestly. You asked if
I agreed with Paul, to which I said yes, then sneer at it. More
dishonestly, you also snipped the latter half of my sentence.
You've no idea what it means, but insist it's physical. I don't insist I know what it means, I've said what I believe it means. You disagree,
which is fair enough, but then go into a tirade of how wrong I am and
how right you are.
So Moses struck Christ, and Christ spouted water?-a Spiritual doesn'tNo, Moses struck a rock, which spouted water. When he says "that rock
mean spiritual in your eyes? I can't argue with that kind of twisted
logic, no doubt you'd argue black was white as well.
I think you mean 1 Thessalonians. Paul describes both resurrected and
still living enjoying the same "fate" - rising to meet the Lord in the
air - without any mention of changes. Physical living and physical resurrected go together.
Obviously the wicked will have "resurrection bodies" or rather,
resurrected bodies. We can neither suffer the pains of hell nor enjoy
the pleasures of heaven without bodies because we are physical
creatures - that is how God made us. However - and purely my own idea
I don't think John has a problem with a physical resurrection as much as
you have a problem with a "spiritual" resurrection.
Cetainly, because the very word "resurrection" implies returning to
your former state, which was as a physical body. There is no such
thing as a "spiritual resurrection" any more than there is a
"spiritual curry and rice" which is somehow different from a physical
curry and rice.
Personally I don't insist on the limitations of "physics we know it, or
rather as what the western banking world of science limits it to be for
the maintanence of the present dispensation/economy.
Here we go. The banks are all at fault for everything from yesterday's weather to tomorrow's traffic jams.
On another note, I believe written descriptions of Heaven in the
scripture are not reliable, they were made in the context of "heathen"
conceptions and speculations of heaven at that time.
They were made by prophets who, unlike either you or me, had been
shown the glory of heaven by God. Given that the heathen of the time
all regarded the afterlife as taking place somewhere underground (the Underworld) your claim of a connection between Biblical discriptions
and heathenism is nonsense.
No, this they meet the Lord after the momentarily transformation is effected.
The holy spirit can be grieved without a physical body.
The physical body which was sown in sin is corruption is gone. you are clinging to the doctrines of Egypt (which God hated) where the corpse is preserved for the resurrection
It was not God's will to give you the knowledge about heaven, about the hidden things that will be revealed, which you are only to see through a glass darkly, so the certainty you attribute to the prophets and
apostles in supporting your own conceptions is just not borne out by scripture.
That is because "God is spirit", that is His natural state. Humans are different. We were created as physical bodies and our bodies are the
conduit through which we communicate with the outside world and
receive information from the outside world.
James tells us that the body without the spirit is dead and I believe
the converse is also true: the spirit without the body is dead.
Both Hinduism and Greek philosophy declare the body to be "the prison
of the soul", but that is not the Bible teaching. Although the Bible
is clear that the soul/spirit returns to God, it is also clear that
without the body this soul/spirit (ie. the dead) know nothing and have
no agency in the physical world.
From the very beginning - and as a counter to Greek philosophy -
Christianity has emphasised the resurrection of the body. We will come
back as real human beings just as Jesus was raised, not as a spirit (something He specifically denied) but as a body that could eat and be touched.
On 02/06/2026 14:30, John wrote:
I don't, but in order to get to a spiritual realm, I believe it has to
be a spiritual body. That said, if there is to be a ressurection, then
in a sense it will be physical to those who are resurrected, but
invisble to the present human eye.-a In other words they will all see
each other as real.-a I see it akin to how Paul describes it in 2
Thessalonians 4
I think you mean 1 Thessalonians. Paul describes both resurrected and
still living enjoying the same "fate" - rising to meet the Lord in the
air - without any mention of changes. Physical living and physical resurrected go together.
I can't envisage millions of Christians physically flying through the
air to meet their Lord on the way to Heaven, you know, the one in
space somewhere where oxygen doesn't exist.
I imagine God is quite capable of ensuring an oxygen supply where it is needed.
That said, I don't discount a bodily resurrection where Christians don
new physical bodies that are immortal, but one wonders why God hasn't
done it much sooner, and ended the misery and suffering that millions
experience daily, and would save billions from going to hell.
The question of timing is entirely separate from the question of
physicality - there is no connection between the two. Perhaps you would
care to start a new thread on that topic.
A further question (to Ken mainly).-a Will non believers also don newObviously the wicked will have "resurrection bodies" or rather,
resurected bodies in order to meet their fate?
resurrected bodies. We can neither suffer the pains of hell nor enjoy
the pleasures of heaven without bodies because we are physical creatures
- that is how God made us. However - and purely my own idea - whereas I expect the resurrected righteous to be raised immortal and incorruptible
and about 21 years of age, with all diseases healed, all disabilities
cured and all marks of sin removed, I expect that the wicked will be
raised pretty much in the same condition as when they died - old,
feeble, decrepit. Those killed by war, accident or disease while still
young will be young, but subject to the infirmities of the flesh.
As I say, that is just my idea and I know of no verse in the Bible that explicitly states those ideas.
James tells us that the body without the spirit is dead and I believe
the converse is also true: the spirit without the body is dead.
On 02/06/2026 13:49, John wrote:
I hope you don't believe that (and I've heard it said as well)I neither believe nor disbelieve. All we are told is that there were
three and the account simply says "And Yahweh appeared unto him
(Abraham) ... the men rose up ... and Yahweh said ..."
I hvae also heard it suggested that Yahweh was one of the three and
while He stayed to talk with Abraham the other two went down to Sodom
and met Lot, as described in Genesis 19. Again, I neither believe nor disbelieve.
This verse indicates the body is but dust, and it is the spirt that
counts. This is a theme throughout the bible, to me there is no way you
can read the bible and miss this point.
Here is Salman Rushdie's prose take on it in a short story (probably
about his then-wife's (c.2000) hindu/brahmin relatives)
Am I right in thinking you believe the soul is the body? If so, are you forgetting Hebrews 4:2
Indeed he doesn't, but would the living still need to put on a new
"body" in order to meet the Lord in the air?
I'm sure He could, it would defy physics though.
Our bodies are just a shell surely, required to live on this planet. The real us, the soul, is within us, but I believe our souls live beyond that.
Fair enough that it's just your thoughts, but I struggle with the
concept that a God of love will create a new shell, simply because He
wants to punish us physically) for not believing in His Son.
(disclaimer:-a I do believe in God and Jesus, but not the way modern Christianity portrays Them.-a I could be mistaken in that, and will
accept my fate should Heaven and Hell be as you claim.)
Say someone isObviously I don't know, but it would seem reasonable to presume that the answer is Yes.
cremated, and God creates a new shell to a non believer, will that pain
in the new body be the same if the punishment was meted out before he dies?-a In other words, if I was to break someones arm now, they would
feel physical pain. If that person is resuurected, and God creates a new body so He can break his arm, would that be exactly the same pain?
On 02/06/2026 13:24, John wrote:
If chapter 7 is after the ressurection, how come there are still
people inhabiting the Earth? Chapter 20 is when the first ressurection
takes place.
Who is on earth? The "great multitude" are standing before the Throne,
which is in heaven. The 144,000 are sealed, presumably on earth, but I assume that takes place and is a prerequisite for their transfer to heaven.
Doesn't answer the question.-a Why can't incarnate Jesus go back to
being Spirit God?
I don't know that He can't. Christian doctrine is that He hasn't.
Because once you ascend into the clouds oxygen becomes thinner, and
eventually ceases to exist. Can you breathe without oxygen in space?
I presume God is able to surround us with a suitable force shield that contains oxygen while we travel from earth to heaven and I know of no
reason to suspect that heaven is without oxygen.
It is interesting that when St Paul describes the change we will
undergo at the resurrection, he does not say "this mortal shall put
on immortality and this physical shall put on spirituality." Our
bodies do not "become spiritual" (whatever nonsense that may mean),
they become incorruptible and immortal.
Paul in verse 44 disagrees with you.
My statement remains true. I agree that in v. 44 Paul asserts that there
is such a thing as a "spiritual body", but in view of his previous statements, I assert that the difference between the "natural body" and
the "spiritual body" is of the same kind and degree as the difference between a human body and a bovine body.
So Spirit then, thanks for clearing that up.-a So God Almighty, Spirit,
became flesh and blood, then ascended to Heaven as flesh and blood?
Does that mean we now have two Gods in Heaven?
I suggest you study the doctrine of the Trinity. We worship One God, manifest in Three Persons. One of those Persons became incarnate and
retains His incarnate body.
Bloody hell Ken, more snipping, and this time dishonestly. You asked
if I agreed with Paul, to which I said yes, then sneer at it. More
dishonestly, you also snipped the latter half of my sentence.
I asked whether you agreed with Paul that the flesh of birds, fish and animals was different from the flesh of humans. Your answer was that you agreed with Paul. If it was some other statement of Paul's with which
you agreed, then you needed to make that clear.
You've no idea what it means, but insist it's physical. I don't insist
I know what it means, I've said what I believe it means. You disagree,
which is fair enough, but then go into a tirade of how wrong I am and
how right you are.
To what are you referring by "it's". Heaven? The resurrected body? If
the former, I don't insist that heaven is physical (ie. made up of
elements and minerals as earth is), merely that it is a place where
physical (us) and spiritual (angels and God) can co-exist.
So Moses struck Christ, and Christ spouted water?-a Spiritual doesn't
mean spiritual in your eyes? I can't argue with that kind of twisted
logic, no doubt you'd argue black was white as well.
No, Moses struck a rock, which spouted water. When he says "that rock
was Christ" he was not defining the substance of the rock, merely
drawing a rather heavy-handed and (in my view) unsuccessful allegory
from the events of the Exodus.
In a sense this is true but what you are espousing didn't really take
off until the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation
On 02/06/2026 13:46, John wrote:
If that's true, and I have heard it said, then Jesus is YHWH, because
that is the Hebrew word the writer used.
If Yahweh created the heavens and the earth and Jesus is the creator,
then Jesus must be Yahweh. I don't find the idea incredible.
If it is true, then who is the Father?The First Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus the Second, the Holy
Spirit the Third. Bearing in mind that the numbers are a purely human invention and in any case should not be thought of as indicating any ordering or priority.
Yahweh was definitely one of the three, according to Genesis. It doesn'tIf that is your understanding of the Trinity, then certainly it would
say who the others were.-a However, if it were the trinity, doesn't that destroy the belief that they are the same God?
From where do you get the idea that "it is the spirit that counts"?
That is certainly not expresed in the verse. Every part is important -
body, soul and spirit.
Which is the important part of a computer? The silicone of the chips?
The software installed on the hard drive? Or the electricity which
powers it? The fact is that unless you have all three, you have
nothing - at most a useless lump of metal and plastic.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, Salman Rushdie is not inspired
by God.
6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
(I posted it because I was reminded of it by your characterisation)Fine.
It doesn't actually state that if you read it in context, but maybe
that's for another thread.
Ok, if there are three in Heaven previous to the incaration, who became human? I would say the Word, you say Yahweh.-a Yahweh causesWhich is a good reason for thinking that Jesus/Yahweh is not the Father.
complications because I would associate Yahweh as being the Father, and
if Yahweh became Jesus, you have Jesus praying to Himself.
Do Spirits (God and Angels) need oxygen?
Who? Yahweh or the Word?
Paul said there are different types of flesh, which I agree with.
These
are all inhabitants on the Earth.-a Paul doesn't say these different
types of flesh are spiritual bodies, and he certainly doesn't include heavenly beings in different types of flesh, which is the bit you snipped.
By it's I mean the ressurected body.
I don't believe the manna was the spiritual food Paul was referring to, basically He was saying Christ was there, in Spirit, to sustain thenm
during the Exodudus.
On 03/06/2026 13:59, John wrote:
Am I right in thinking you believe the soul is the body? If so, are
you forgetting Hebrews 4:2
What on earth makes you think that? St Paul tells us that man is made up
of spirit, soul and body. The relevant Greek words are:
psyche - mind, as in psychology
sarx - flesh, body, as in "sarcophagus"
On 03/06/2026 14:03, John wrote:
Yahweh was definitely one of the three, according to Genesis. ItIf that is your understanding of the Trinity, then certainly it would destroy that misunderstanding.
doesn't say who the others were.-a However, if it were the trinity,
doesn't that destroy the belief that they are the same God?
My wife and I were, for 53 years, one flesh in two bodies, two persons.
That is, I believe, the best analogy you are going to find for the
belief that God is One Substance in Three Persons.
On 03/06/2026 14:59, John wrote:
It doesn't actually state that if you read it in context, but maybe
that's for another thread.
No, I am conflating two passages, one from the Old and the other from
the New. Both John and Paul tell us that all things were made by Jesus.
It is the Old Testament which tells us, repeatedly, that Yahweh created
all things.
Ok, if there are three in Heaven previous to the incaration, who
became human? I would say the Word, you say Yahweh.-a Yahweh causes
complications because I would associate Yahweh as being the Father,
and if Yahweh became Jesus, you have Jesus praying to Himself.
Which is a good reason for thinking that Jesus/Yahweh is not the Father
I should, however, like to point out that while "Jesus" (or Yeshua) is undoubtedly a proper name given to Jesus, "Yahweh" and "Word" are more titles than names. Actually, on the basis of Daniel 12, I suspect that
Jesus is also Michael the archangel (the word simply means "ruler of
angels" and I do not in any way suggest that Jesus is "only" an angel).
Yes, I used to think of the God of the Old Testament being the Father,
until I realised the connection between Creator, creation and Jesus.
However as we believe in "Unity in Trinity", it would not surprise me to discover one day that the title "Yahweh" is employed by all Three
Persons at different times.
On 03/06/2026 14:54, John wrote:
Do Spirits (God and Angels) need oxygen?
How do you expect me to know that? All I can say is that spirits are
quite happy existing in an oxygen-rich environment - planet Earth.
Who? Yahweh or the Word?
Both titles refer to the same Person.
6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
I am not convinced that the words you quote are applicable to human
beings. They refer to the heavenly bread, for Jesus has just declared
that His flesh is the true bread - but then, to remove any temptation
to over literalism, He remarks that eternal life comes from the
Spirit, the flesh (His actual flesh) profiteth nothing.
(I posted it because I was reminded of it by your characterisation)Fine.
I read the Satanic Verses when all the fuss was being made and was not enamoured of Rushdie's style.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
So, this is my take, do you agree?
Spirit - The thing that connects the believer to God, awakened when
Christ is revealed to the person.
I don't believe the soul needs a body after the body dies.Maybe not, but it needs a body if it is to be conscious.
bible study for last 3 weeks at the local language church have been
about the Holy Spirit, the pastor made a point that Roman (English
bibles) had the advantage over the local script because it could
distinguish between Spirit (capitalised) and spirit (which refers to men angels etc), (he didn't point out that hebrew and greek didn't have
capital letters either.)
But for this point, and also a addressing the point you raised on Adam's birth there is Romans 8 (8:9), 1Jn 4 (4:6), just to name 2 verses, but
the doctrine is passim, so I'm surprised you labour the point. The
spirit in man that concerns us, which is involved in the resurrection
comes from God, there is no room for an argument for a
scientific-rational age-of-reason proof for a physical resurrection
(afaic)
I would have no issue if God was an umbrella title for the three
seperate persons, but the trinity claim that they are three but also
one. You and Shirley were no doubt one in closeness, and shared similar thoughts and ideas, but you weren't the same person.
The creed also claims the Son is co-equal with the Father, and the bible catetegorically refutes that.The creeds are careful to say that the Incarnate Jesus was subordinate
When did you become a JW?-a :-)-a-a-a That is very much what they believe
But the Father is very much the God of the OT, jesus expressly says so
in John 20:17
Jesus describes the Father as the one true God.Remember, Christians firmly believe in One God.
So before the birth of Jesus, there was just the God of the OT?
If God then became Jesus, who was in Heaven whom Jsus prayed to?See above.
But for this point, and also a addressing the point you raised on Adam's
birth there is Romans 8 (8:9), 1Jn 4 (4:6), just to name 2 verses, but
the doctrine is passim, so I'm surprised you labour the point. The
spirit in man that concerns us, which is involved in the resurrection
comes from God, there is no room for an argument for a
scientific-rational age-of-reason proof for a physical resurrection
(afaic)
As I have previously pointed out, the Greek words point to two very
different things.
pneuma is the origin of the English word "pneumatic" or the disease "pneumonia". It has to do with the fact that humans and animals
breathe. Lacking other criteria, the ancients divided the world into
living (ie. breathing) and non-living (no breathing). So anything
living had pneuma, whether animals or humans. Anything non-living,
such as rocks, did not have pneuma. Of course, they were ignorant of
plant respiration, which complicates matters slightly!
psuche or psyche, on the other hand, is a quality of living things
and, probably, more particularly, of humans. It is the origin of words
such as "psychology" or "psychiatrist". I think the best translation
these days would be "mind" (as opposed to the physical organ, the
brain). I would also accept "personality".
You are reverting to the track of the mind-body problem of Western
Philosohy and its associated agenda, to avoid the plain message of the
bible.
The spirit-soul distinction is not relevant to the point, for god-givenI notice that you carefully exclude the body from your claims. For
life they exist together. It makes no difference.
The spirit-soul distinction is not relevant to the point, for god-givenI notice that you carefully exclude the body from your claims. For
life they exist together. It makes no difference.
god-given life, all three - body, soul and spirit - are necessary. If
one of the three is missing, conscious life has ended.
On 03/06/2026 23:57, John wrote:
So, this is my take, do you agree?
Spirit - The thing that connects the believer to God, awakened when
Christ is revealed to the person.
I suggest you use something like e-Sword in the KJV+ mode and see just
how the words pneuma and psyche are used.
I don't believe the soul needs a body after the body dies.Maybe not, but it needs a body if it is to be conscious.
On 04/06/2026 00:46, John wrote:
So before the birth of Jesus, there was just the God of the OT?
Indeed. There was just the God (elohim) of the Old Testament, Who could
say "Let *us* make man in *our* image". And you do realise that the grammatical form of "elohim" means a minimum of three?
Not so. The recent discussion was only on the possible spirt/soul
dichotomy, so that is all that was addressed. There was no careful
elision (original sense of elide), and it would have been pointless: resurrection already implies the body.
There is a tradition of disembodied voices though (the bat kol), and a tradition of disembodied beings (involved in spirit possession), The
Turing Test Question for evil spirits is "did jesus come in the flesh"
Apparently not having a body, and with no possibility for regular
embodiment they cannot bear to attest the fact of the resurrection.
Samuel managed it.
No, they believe He was the arch-angel. (I just double checked to make
sure)
Jesus said that His God was Mary M's God, His Father and Mary's Father.
So Jesus's Father is Yahweh, the Jewish God of the OT.
There was only one in Heaven prior to the incarnation, Yahweh, aka The Word.-a He became flesh but also remained in Heaven so that Jesus had someone to pray to.
It has been pointed out to you previously that the Hebrew also means singular.
But if you're right, who are these three?Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Any more silly questions?
On 05/06/2026 22:40, John wrote:
Samuel managed it.
I presume you are referring to the witch of Endor. I deny that it
actually was Samuel. I am uncertain whether anyone other than the medium (the witch) saw anything. Saul's "recognition" of the prophet may have
been based on nothing more than the witch's description, for you will
notice that he had to ask the woman, "What did you see?" Clearly,
whatever it was, was invisible to Saul.
On 06/06/2026 00:46, John wrote:
Before Jesus was the Word, you claimed that the Father (Yahweh) and
the Word (Jesus) were the same entity.
No, I claimed that Yahweh and Jesus were the same entity. You, not I,
have claimed that Yahweh is the same as the Father.
Who is the Father if not Yahweh?Er - in conventional terminology, the Father is the First Person of the
It is true that Saul didn't see Samuel, but the medium described him and Saul knew it was Samuel and paid homage to him.
Read verse 15 onwards. Samuel rebukes Saul for bringing him up and tellsI see no reason to think that Samuel's repudiation of Saul at God's
him the reason why God has ignored him. Would the medium have known
that? To me, this doesn't sound like a medium playing to an audience,
but a genuine communication with someone who'd passed.
On the other hand, God's utter rejection of all forms of necromancy
are a good reason for suspecting that the woman might have been in
touch with demonic spirits.
Or it may have been an exception which God made concerning his "anointed
one" Saul.
I believe Characters like Saul, Cain, Judas, are presented in the bible
that the "the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:35),
I think it judges those that share the apparent negative judgement again
them that the bible professes, rather to judge correctly (John 7:24)
I've seen these arguments for the other side on this issue more than aOf course, logic, reason and sense are a very shakey basis for believing anything!
dozen times in the last decade on ukrc, so I'll skip this again. At
least you should realise there is a case for the other side, so any
proof that you adduce or any argument that you support on these case
studies is going to be on shakey grounds.
On 06/06/2026 11:06, John wrote:
It is true that Saul didn't see Samuel, but the medium described him
and Saul knew it was Samuel and paid homage to him.
The medium need not have seen anything at all to be able to describe
such a well-known figure as Samuel. Saul, being deceived, reverenced the description.
Read verse 15 onwards. Samuel rebukes Saul for bringing him up and
tells him the reason why God has ignored him. Would the medium have
known that? To me, this doesn't sound like a medium playing to an
audience, but a genuine communication with someone who'd passed.
I see no reason to think that Samuel's repudiation of Saul at God's
command had remained secret. So again, there need be nothing more than a
bit of clever fakery by the "witch".
On the other hand, God's utter rejection of all forms of necromancy are
a good reason for suspecting that the woman might have been in touch
with demonic spirits.
However, I'll invite you to apply a bit of that uncommon resource - intelligence and common sense. Samuel was a prophet of God. If he was
indeed in a conscious state after death, that would surely be in heaven (wherever that is). Is it likely that he would be "ascending out of the earth" when summoned by the witch? Or was she merely voicing the common opinion of the time that the dead were confined in the Underworld (sheol
or hades)? Or do you believe that heaven is, in fact, underground, a slightly deeper layer in the onion? And if heaven is underground, what happened to Elijah, who was carried *up* by the chariot of fire? Did the chariot reverse direction as soon as it was out of sight and plunge
under the earth?
On 06/06/2026 11:09, John wrote:
Who is the Father if not Yahweh?Er - in conventional terminology, the Father is the First Person of the
Holy Trinity. Remember, however, that First, Second and Third is a
matter of nomenclature, not of either chronology or importance.
Likewise the names "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" are merely the way
in which we distinguish the Persons of the Trinity. All Three are equal
and (before the Incarnation) equally holy spirit.
As always, I add the caveat that I am describing the doctrine of the Trinity, which may or may not correspond to reality in heaven.
That is true, but the medium was scared because Saul had tricked her, so there was no reason for her to fake Samuel.
Again this is possible, but the idea of demons roaming the Earth is more
a New Testament idea.
Again true, although Heaven is also a New Testament idea. Jewish belief
was that all went Sheol until the ressurection, which leads me to
believe the event didn't actiually happen.
But yes, I don't discount your reasoning at all on this one.Good. Of course, it was always open to you to apply the same reasoning
I've seen these arguments for the other side on this issue more than aOf course, logic, reason and sense are a very shakey basis for
dozen times in the last decade on ukrc, so I'll skip this again. At
least you should realise there is a case for the other side, so any
proof that you adduce or any argument that you support on these case
studies is going to be on shakey grounds.
believing anything!
Of course, logic, reason and sense are a very shakey basis for
believing anything!
logic and reasoning based on false, incorrect, or ill-understood
premises.
PS Regarding the extent of the mind body malaise, i unfortunately saw a distressed relative using some "miracle of the mind" app by a much felicitated official indian guru, unfortunately there i cant find anyI'm sorry to hear about your relative. I'm afraid that I have to point
non facebook/youtube/instagram link
Do you also believe everything is meaningless?
If you're relying on
Ecclesiastes and Psalms for your doctrine then I think your argument is weak.
But if you are correct that the dead no nothing, how do you
explain Revelation 7:9-12?
We know Almighty God is Spirit, presumably so is The Holy Spirit, why do
you think incarnate Jesus would be any different?
The language used by
John in Revelation is symbolic of course, but if Heaven isn't a physical place, how would the flesh and blood of Jesus get there?
Did He have white hair when he was on Earth?-a What happened when He no longer had oxygen to breathe?
FWIW I believe (should such an event have occurred), that the body He departed with, will have gone through a change which meant being able to enter Heaven, changing from physical to spiritual, maybe shredding the physical body.
As an aside, do you belive the Word (pre-Jesus) was Spirit or a bodily existence?
I wouldn't say fuzzy, but certainly I would say it's a spiritual realm rather than a physical one. To those occupying that realm, it will be
real of course, but on a different dimension to the physical realm
humans inhabit.
How did Elijah and Enoch (and by assumption Moses) get into Heaven if
flesh and blood can't enter it?
Interestingly you say spirits inhabit the Earth, which is further proof
that Heaven is a spiritual existence.
I do agree with Paul there,
We can see birds, animals and fish, but we can't see
the Heavenly beings, unless they choose to manifest as humans (eg angels showing themselves in human form in the OT)
So you're saying the new body will still be physical, wheras Paul says
it will be spiritual. The same Greek word for spiritual is used in
Chapter 10:3-4. Did the Israelites actually eat and drink, or was it spiritual fortification?
On 04/06/2026 00:19, John wrote:
I would have no issue if God was an umbrella title for the three
seperate persons, but the trinity claim that they are three but also
one. You and Shirley were no doubt one in closeness, and shared
similar thoughts and ideas, but you weren't the same person.
And neither is the Father the same Person as the Son.
The creed also claims the Son is co-equal with the Father, and the
bible catetegorically refutes that.
The creeds are careful to say that the Incarnate Jesus was subordinate
to the Father (and, presumably, the Spirit). The co-equal bit refers to Jesus before (and, presumably, after) the Incarnation.
Frankly, I am uncomfortable debating the Trinity. We simply do not
*know* anything about God except what is revealed to us and I do not
accept that the creeds are revelation. My final thought is what Jesus
said in John 5:23, which is that we should honour the Son as we honour
the Father.
If we insult the American ambassador, we are insulting America. In the
same way, if we refuse honour to Jesus we are refusing honour to the
Father. Better, in my opinion, to err on the side of excessive honour
for Jesus and when we get "up there" and can see God face-to-face, He
can instruct us in the exact relationship between the members of the
Trinity or whether there is any such thing. After all, Revelation speaks
of the "seven spirits of God"!
On 04/06/2026 00:38, John wrote:
When did you become a JW?-a :-)-a-a-a That is very much what they believe
Except that they believe Jesus is *only* an angel. My position is that
*if* Michael is only an angel, then Jesus is not Michael. However I see
no incompatibility between the second Person of the Trinity being also
ruler of the heavenly hosts (arch-angel).
But the Father is very much the God of the OT, jesus expressly says so
in John 20:17
Really? In my Bible that verse says nothing at all bout the Old Testament.
Jesus describes the Father as the one true God.Remember, Christians firmly believe in One God.
Before Jesus was the Word, you claimed that the Father (Yahweh) and the
Word (Jesus) were the same entity.
I agree that the Son should be honoured as the Father is, but we can do
that without saying Jesus is God.
read the whole chapter, Jesus isThe Creeds make it clear that Jesus as Man was subordinate to the
saying He can do nothing of his own accord, but he was sent by the
Father. Everything points back to the Father
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:22:56 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,474 |