Conditional immortality

[squint]

This entire chapter is about the certainty of the resurrection of the dead. Its describing the difference be our natural bodies which bear the image of Adam and how we will bear the image of the heavenly ( Christ). The emphasis isn't on Adam at all in this chapter but on the resurrected Christ.

Adam was the forerunner of every natural man. And since these are the partakers of resurrection, it is very much about the first/natural condition and the last resurrected Body in Christ. No need to mitigate Adam when Paul calls him out by name several times in this chapter.

The Mormon joke was a reference to the second adam as a life giving spirit and a belief about Adam in mormon theology that he ascended to godhood(though its not really accepted as much by mainstream LDS.

Everyone who is resurrected from the dead is joined to the Kingdom of One.

Adam is part of the Body of Christ. And therein resides the last Adam and will also reside the last [calmron]

 

[squint]

So, are you suggesting that the first man (Adam) who died because he sinned was transformed in his death into Jesus Christ?

All believers who belong to God in Christ are joined in the resurrection FULLY into Christ Himself, as a part or portion of Him in the Kingdom of One.

Your statements are kind of strange, so if you are willing it would be helpful if you explained what you mean by "there is a first Adam (a natural Adam) and when that Adam passed from his dust body, he became a last Adam (spiritual) joined to his Heavenly Father."

See the above.

Jesus Christ is the second Adam, one could call him the last Adam but I am not sure that scripture is suggesting that the first Adam is the second.

Jesus was a natural man and a glorified man. A First and a Last as well. He did contain the Spirit without measure in His natural body. The Fullness of God. A very unique distinction.

There is only One Eternal Body in Jesus Christ. There is a first Mr. Coffee and there will be a last Mr. Coffee. and so forth

s

 

[CalmRon]

Adam was the forerunner of every natural man. And since these are the partakers of resurrection, it is very much about the first/natural condition and the last resurrected Body in Christ. No need to mitigate Adam when Paul calls him out by name several times in this chapter.



Everyone who is resurrected from the dead is joined to the Kingdom of One.

Adam is part of the Body of Christ. And therein resides the last Adam and will also reside the last [calmron]

Christ is the forerunner of every spiritual man, obviously not every natural man who is called is chosen. When Paul speaks of the second Adam he is doing so to describe Christ as the first of a new creation. If you want to go on denying and misrepresenting what Paul is discussing in 1 Corinthians 15, be my guest, but please tell me how the first Adam became a life giving spirit? And for what purpose is that doctrinal nugget sandwiched into a discourse about the resurrection?

 

[BobRyan]

So you tell me: Which is it. Do you believe the Papal seat to be Antichrist (a descriptive name meaning Against Christ)? or do you just like showing us things you don't believe that others say?

First you tell me - were the Cardinals and Popes describing various popes by that term during the western schism? And in that case was it the very Pope that those same Cardinals had previously elected -- or was Luther the first to use the term and apply it to the Pope-- many years later?

Second question - in the case where you pick one or the other of the Papal lines during the western schism as your "home team" to root for during the papal wars - was your selected team "accurate' in calling the other Pope's "Antichrist' -- in your view?

Were they justified in doing so?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

I can't help but chuckle at the squirming non-answer given by BobRyan to your question Mama Kidogo.

 

[BobRyan]

I can't help but chuckle at the squirmming non-answer to the question about whether it was justified to call the various popes (and antipopes0 "antichrist" as we in fact being done by the various Catholic factions during the Western Schism.

 

[fhansen]

First you tell me - were the Cardinals and Popes describing various popes by that term during the western schism? And in that case was it the very Pope that those same Cardinals had previously elected -- or was Luther the first to use the term and apply it to the Pope-- many years later?

Second question - in the case where you pick one or the other of the Papal lines during the western schism as your "home team" to root for during the papal wars - was your selected team "accurate' in calling the other Pope's "Antichrist' -- in your view?

Were they justified in doing so?

in Christ,

Bob

No one's justified in using the term-unless, presumably, the anti-christ appears, that is.

 

[BobRyan]

No one's justified in using the term-unless, presumably, the anti-christ appears, that is.

So then during the Western Schism - the real Pope (whoever you may pick for that time) and the real Cardinals -- were to be condemned for referring to what they thought of as "antipopes" -- by the name antichrist?

You are opposing your own church magisterium to claim that antipopes are in fact not antichrists.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

BobRyan, Why do your answers seek to divert attention away from the question asked of you about your views and towards somebody else or something else?

 

[BobRyan]

Because the RCC itself is foremost in history in terms of "being first and foremost" to use that term for Popes -- and some people seem to enjoy pretending that history does not exist as it is - when coming up with a story.

Context is everything -- and details matter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, BobRyan, what you're saying is that because X happened several centuries ago you need not reply to a question asked about what you stand for?

 

[BobRyan]

I am saying that Catholics need to own their own history to the point of being able to address their own use of such terms. If they wish to condemn their own use of the term to apply to Popes -- and then condemn protestants like Luther for using those same Catholic terms to apply to the Popes - as well.. then say so.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am saying that Catholics need to own their own history to the point of being able to address their own use of such terms. If they wish to condemn their own use of the term to apply to Popes -- and then condemn protestants like Luther for using those same Catholic terms to apply to the Popes - as well.. then say so.

in Christ,

Bob

You're saying a lot about what you think Catholics ought to do but you're not answering the question asked of you.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I can't help but chuckle at the squirming non-answer given by BobRyan to your question Mama Kidogo.

Yeah, I guess i'll have to suddenly answer a question first, before he'll answer that simple question. So here goes;

I see a big difference between being wrong about something , even something very important and being against Christ in nature. Being Antichrist is believing Jesus is not Lord. So no. I do not view Rome as Antichrist even during the Schism. I just see them with inflated egos and believing dogma they made on their own without agreement.

So now it's his turn. But I expect to see the Tango rather than an answer.
I pray my post wasn't too offensive but he asked.

 

[fhansen]

So then during the Western Schism - the real Pope (whoever you may pick for that time) and the real Cardinals -- were to be condemned for referring to what they thought of as "antipopes" -- by the name antichrist?

You are opposing your own church magisterium to claim that antipopes are in fact not antichrists.

in Christ,

Bob

Well, heck no I'm not. They were engaging in hyberbole, or simple human weakness, nothing to do with articles of faith, declarations involving faith and morals.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, heck no I'm not. They were engaging in hyberbole, or simple human weakness, nothing to do with articles of faith, declarations involving faith and morals.

So when they (Catholics) call the Pope antichrist - or the catholic monk - Luther calls the pope Antichrist - no problem??

Its all good.??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead,

Point made.

ahh yes 1 Cor 15 --- maybe it should be accepted as the Word of God - eh?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

called "The Conditionalist faith of our Fathers" on the subject. I may be mistaken but I think it is considered heterodox .

The Catholic church in history was never short on name calling when it came to protestants.

The above is one example of you doing exactly the sort of thing that you say you don't do.

not true - I love pointing out where the RCC resorted to name calling as "the solution" when Bible study failed them. In the case of the protesting Catholics - it was the RCC calling its own catholic membership names.

in Christ,

Bob