What happens next?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A) I was referring to your use of the word 'flesh'.

Dale B Martin's The Corinthian Body makes for very interesting reading.

You can even find it gratis online.

[Cow Poke]

It is evident that not all Christians believe in exactly the same thing in every respect.

I'm SHOCKED! And stunned!

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

Rupertus Meldeniu, German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century

[seer]

Dale B Martin's The Corinthian Body makes for very interesting reading.

You can even find it gratis online.

Why interesting? The text is rather clear.

For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality,

Must put on - the physical body is not destroyed but added to:

For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

How can the perishable clothe itself if it no longer exists or destroyed?

[Sparko]

It is evident that not all Christians believe in exactly the same thing in every respect.

It's not a popularity contest. And not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian. Historically the orthodox Christian church has defined core doctrines that define what it means to be a Christian. Those doctrines span many denominations that all fall under the umbrella of Christianity. Any that don't hold to those central doctrines are not Christian, even if they themselves claim they are. Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They deny the deity of Jesus, the Trinity. Mormons added an entire testament to the bible and their ideas of God and mankind are way outside of Christianity. They are cults of Christianity, not Christian.

And on non-essential doctrines, yes, we do believe different things. That is why there are various denominations and branches of Christianity.

[Sparko]

Why interesting? The text is rather clear.

Jesus' resurrection was meant as an example to us. His dead physical body was brought back to life and made immortal. He even kept his wounds to show us that it was the same body - a body of flesh and bone. And he ate food and even said that he was not a spirit.

Luke 24:38–40- And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

Luke 24:41–43 - ‘Have you anything here to eat?’ They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate before them”

[seer]

Jesus' resurrection was meant as an example to us. His dead physical body was brought back to life and made immortal. He even kept his wounds to show us that it was the same body - a body of flesh and bone. And he ate food and even said that he was not a spirit.

Luke 24:38–40- And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.

Luke 24:41–43 - ‘Have you anything here to eat?’ They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate before them”

Yep, and Paul was not teaching anything different!

[rogue06]

I'm SHOCKED! And stunned!

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

Rupertus Meldeniu, German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas, which means "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]," actually comes from the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis' De republica ecclesiastica in 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

Earlier, Thomas Aquinas, attributed that view to Augustine in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

[Juvenal]

Most likely, your references show how disconnected you are from people. Must be your autism.

If true, that's wildly inappropriate. If false, it's an attempt to turn autism into something contemptible.

[Sparko]

If true, that's wildly inappropriate. If false, it's an attempt to turn autism into something contemptible.

So you are calling her behavior contemptible?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's not a popularity contest. And not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian.

What consummate arrogance you display. Who is to decide what is and is not a Christian? It is all a matter of opinion.

Historically the orthodox Christian church has defined core doctrines that define what it means to be a Christian.

Not until the fourth and early fifth centuries when Christianity had gained temporal power via the secular authorities. And even then some Christians rejected some of those doctrines. The word heretic simply means one who chooses.

Prior to the early fourth century different Christians believed in different things, particularly with regard to the nature of the Son and his relationship with the Father. That various proto-orthodox ECFs railed against those groups they considered heretic was nothing but the opinion[s] of those particular ECFs.

It should also be remembered that those, now deemed apocryphal, Christian texts were once also regarded as Scripture by their communities.

[Juvenal]

So you are calling her behavior contemptible?

Oh, so you want me to spell this out for you. A feeling of disconnection isn't something anyone strives to achieve. It's not admirable. It's not a compliment. So when you associate it with autism to attack someone you don't like, you're being contemptible

And more, you're achieving exactly what you're setting out to disrespect.

But I'd never dream of blaming your disconnection from the feelings of others on autism. After all, there's no link between being on the spectrum and being stupid.

Ask Nick.

[Diogenes]

Whether or not you sin was my question, which you could not bring yourself to answer.

The answer going above your head does not me I didn't answer it.

And you seem to be so fixated by sexual sins!

Given that it's been made into an issue that those who commit such wish to be affirmed in their sin to the point of being schismatic, it's not me who has the fixation. Of course, it's likely much more deep as the same root their very ego-identity in such which is why it's taken so personally when pointed out. Much like the rich going ruler, they put root themselves in something other than Christ.

[Diogenes]

Yeah. But it was just an aside anyway, not really a main part of the argument.

It's literally the crux of the argument. It's wildly taken out of context.

Chapter 11 only goes to vs 36.

Romans 11:29, my bad.

[Sparko]

Oh, so you want me to spell this out for you. A feeling of disconnection isn't something anyone strives to achieve. It's not admirable. It's not a compliment. So when you associate it with autism to attack someone you don't like, you're being contemptible

And more, you're achieving exactly what you're setting out to disrespect.

But I'd never dream of blaming your disconnection from the feelings of others on autism. After all, there's no link between being on the spectrum and being stupid.

Ask Nick.

I never said anything about autism being contemptible. You did. And I wasn't being contemptible. I merely mentioned that autism can cause people to be disconnected from social cues and such. Which is true. Nothing contemptible about it. HA routinely shows she is unable to understand humor or figures of speech, or even what turns of phrases mean. That is something that afflicts people with autism. But I doubt it is what is actually going on with her. She uses such tactics in order to troll. But if it is autism, it would explain her behavior. Nothing contemptible about it. Just facts. Nick will admit he has problems with social cues. Doesn't make him stupid or contemptible.

[Juvenal]

I never said anything about autism being contemptible. You did.

Did you get hit by the stupid bus recently? I'm going to spell it out in big letters this time.

DO NOT ATTACK YOUR OPPONENTS BY CALLING THEM AUTISTIC.

Do you get it now? Is that simple enough for you?

You attacked someone you hold in contempt by calling them autistic, even though you don't believe that's true. That's what "turning autism into something contemptible" means. Unless you're a medical professional, trained in that speciality, you don't diagnose it at all, let alone over the internet. That is wicked cringe.

This mad cabal that thinks they can bandy autism about in these conversations needs breaking up, and you're just the right color to do it. I'm not the only who's noticed MM stepping back from changing usernames after you came out against it.

Clean up your act or none of the rest will.