Kirk Cameron and annihilationism

[Jim]

I suggest these new modern translations are wrong since I provided almost 30 translations that have the son of man who is in heaven.

But those are almost all using Textus Receptus as the Greek version. It is not always right.

 

[civic]

But those are almost all using Textus Receptus as the Greek version. It is not always right.

nothing is always 100% right except the original manuscripts which no one has.

 

[Jim]

definition of fallacy : a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

it has nothing to do with ego but the fact you are lacking a biblical, historical, orthodox view on essential/core doctrines of the historic church dating back to the time of the Apostles and their disciples the dating back to the 1st/2nd century ECF's.

More on fallacies below. A good article I will link containing over 200 of them.

Fallacies​

A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The list of fallacies below contains 231 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacious reasoning should not be persuasive, but it too often is.

The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve only explanations, or definitions, or questions, or other products of reasoning. Some researchers, although not most, use the term “fallacy” very broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief. The long list below includes some fallacies of these sorts if they have commonly-known names, but most are fallacies that involve kinds of errors made while arguing informally in natural language, that is, in everyday discourse. https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

hope this helps !!!

It is not the fallacy, specifically, that I was alluding to. It was the condescending attitude that I see in so much of your posts to me and some others.

 

[Jim]

nothing is always 100% right except the original manuscripts which no one has.

I agree. And truth is not always that which is the most common.

 

[civic]

It is not the fallacy, specifically, that I was alluding to. It was the condescending attitude that I see in so much of your posts to me and some others.

for example its a fallacy to say since Jesus is a man therefore He cannot be God.

another fallacy is to claim spiritual body is incorpereal.

another fallacy is to claim the son of man in not human.

another fallacy is to claim God is not a Trinity.

So when I see these types of fallacious claims I call them out, the same with fallacious questions.

And its not condescending, its just the hard truth.

 

[Jim]

for example its a fallacy to say since Jesus is a man therefore He cannot be God.

another fallacy is to claim spiritual body is incorpereal.

another fallacy is to claim the son of man in not human.

another fallacy is to claim God is not a Trinity.

So when I see these types of fallacious claims I call them out, the same with fallacious questions.

And its not condescending, its just the hard truth.

And of course you are the authoritative judge of what constitutes hard truth. What arrogance. That is but more condescending thinking on your part. What you believe does not constitute truth. What you believe may agree or coincide with truth, but your believing something does not make it so.

 

[civic]

And of course you are the authoritative judge of what constitutes hard truth. What arrogance. That is but more condescending thinking on your part. What you believe does not constitute truth. What you believe may agree or coincide with truth, but your believing something does not make it so.

I know the doctrines the church has held since its inception, the foundational doctrines which include the Trinity, Deity of Christ, The Resurrection( the centerpiece of the gospel) I'm very well versed in my Theological studies on those doctrines. What you call arrogance I call biblical truth.

 

[FreeInChrist]

And of course you are the authoritative judge of what constitutes hard truth. What arrogance. That is but more condescending thinking on your part. What you believe does not constitute truth. What you believe may agree or coincide with truth, but your believing something does not make it so.

Well Jim.... please tell me which translation you follow and if you say KJV I will not bother you again for it is full of holes and and things that mislead even using the word think in reference to Jesus in Luke 1.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That should tell you that Jesus who is in heaven now is not still in his earthly human body. Nothing material or corporal can be omnipresent.

Logically, you're drawing a distinction that doesn't exist.

Think of "In Him we live move and have our being"........

We references such things in secular "speak" as the "fabric of the universe". There are many many things that we don't understand about such a construct.

What we can do is believe what God said to be true. Nobody has gotten past such "paradoxes" in understanding. I see the fabric of all things tangible in the very tangible attributes of Divinity. You're resisting....

There is a tangible "fabric" to even thought. I think you realize this is certainly possible. You're just resisting as if this can't possible be an answer.

 

[praise_yeshua]

But Jesus is God and while on earth He had a corporal, physical human body.

The miracles that Jesus performed like turning water into wine, healing the lame, raising the dead, etc. He did by the power of the Holy Spirit, same as any other human being that performed miracles.

Just another instance that we have all experienced of being told something that was incorrect. We weren't being lied to; it is just that the one telling us was wrong.

If you looked at and heard someone that you had just witnessed be killed and be buried three days earlier, I suspect that you would not let yourself think that you were actually seeing them.

Just like Thomas, who would not be convinced that Jesus was alive, it would take more than simply seeing someone who looked exactly like the one who died. In Thomas' case it took the nail holes in Jesus' hands and the spear puncture in Jesus' side to convince him that Jesus had indeed risen from the grave. In Mary's case it took the sound of Jesus' voice to convince her.

No they did not watch Him rise into heaven. They only saw Him disappear into a cloud.

I agree with most of that. However, given that Jesus did not have a human body, or any physical body before coming to earth, I am convinced that when he returned again to heaven, He returned to the same glorious "body" that He had before. We cannot know for sure what that really was. But we can be sure that it is nothing like exists in any solid, corporal, physical, earthly state. The is no indication that anything physical exists outside of this physical universe.

1 Cor 15:35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies.37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed – perhaps of wheat or something else.

Even today's science says that this physical universe is limited in size and there is nothing to indicate that there is anything physical beyond this universe.

There are those who believe that the "new heavens and new earth" will be God's correction of what happened, i.e., the fall, when Adam sinned and was ejected from the Garden of Eden. I believe that all of what is described has happened to the universe as a result of "the fall" is pure nonsense. God's plan was not interrupted or altered in any way by what Adam did. God's plan was not changed in any way by what Adam did. Adam's sin, while not caused by God, was part and parcel to God's plan. God's plan worked and is working now precisely as He intended at the outset.

There is a reason for and a purpose to why God created this world as He did with all the sin that mankind commits. The sin of Adam, and the sins of all the rest of mankind, is integral with and is absolutely necessary to that reason and that purpose. I believe that is to establish a kingdom of beings who knowingly and willingly love God. I believe that is God's ultimate purpose.

(ESV) Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

The life in this physical body in this physical universe is a test, a test of who will of their own freewill will love God, in spite of all the forces aligned against that.

The faithfulness of the High Priest work depends upon a tangible change of experience in the Son of God. Jesus Christ.

Such is much more than just a memory of an experience that HE would rather forget.

This "thought" is relative to the following words of the writer of Hebrews....

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

He is alive right this minute tangibly in a body that meaningfully reflects His on going experience.

Now there is certain things we can't know. I don't know if that will change in the future. There is an argument to be made of Christ no longer needing to maintain that experience once His work among humanity is over.

Either way, I don't believe this has anything to do with the Essence, Character, or Substance that experienced change relative to Divine attributes. Sin creates change. Our sin demanded a substantive change in the bodily form of Jesus Christ that even now is required.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It is not the fallacy, specifically, that I was alluding to. It was the condescending attitude that I see in so much of your posts to me and some others.

I'm worse than @civic has ever been in this. I think "condescending attitudes" are often required to get a point across. You shouldn't rely on such things to win an argument. It is meaningless in the overall scope of information/knowledge.