Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw
If you read the post from the beginning as a whole you can see my line of thought and why you can come to the conclusion according to Paul's logic that if you don't believe in a future bodily resurrection of the dead as the hope for those that believed in the Gospel, you are effectively denying the Christ's bodily resurrection. This is coming from Paul's logic itself in the passage I explained before. See his logic, his connection of our bodily resurrection with Jesus resurrection, and the fact that it is our hope, and if the hope is removed, you are making Jesus resurrection no fully effective on us according to Paul, and therefore, you are denying Jesus' resurrection, according to Paul's logic.
So the implication of it is that if you are denying Christ bodily resurrection, you are then preaching a different Gospel. The bodily resurrection AS Jesus resurrected, empty grave, is an inseparable part of the Gospel, and Paul didn't stop including it in his preachings as you can see in the book of Acts.
|
I can't tell if you think I am trying to tell you that you are wrong about a future bodily resurrection -- I am not -- or if I am just that poor a communicator. So let me try again.
As I am new to this side of things, I have no desire to debate you about it all, nor am I equipped to teach a thing about it. But my hesitation to fully embrace what you have presented gives you no right to proclaim me lost for all eternity based on the notion that I am denying the gospel of Christ. I don't need your interpretation of Paul's logic to know what the gospel is because Paul stated it explicitly. It's the same message Peter preached in
Acts 2. If you feel the need to add to it, be my guest, but I'm not coming along for the ride. I am in no way telling you that there isn't more to scripture, but as a basic starting point, I believe quoting an apostle is much safer than interpreting one.
Threaded Mode
