I will start off my argument by responding to all of the claims and Questions Con brings up.
I will also quickly clarify some things so that Con and the Judges can be reassured of the meanings of words and scripture.
So starting off with this, the scripture say , if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.
The verse Con is referring to is 1 Peter 4:11 which reads (from the NKJV):
"
If anyone speaks, let him speak as the [a]oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the [b]dominion forever and ever. Amen."
The word "oracles" in this verse simply means utterances.
This is the context of the verse,"
"
But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers. 8 And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.” 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If anyone speaks, let him speak as the [c]oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the [d]dominion forever and ever. Amen."
This verse is simply implying that when we speak, we must be careful and cautious and allow God to lead our words, because words have power. Reference Proverbs 18:21.
I just want to clarify these things.
I will cite or quote what is written in scripture. Scripture say, prove all things. How am I going to prove what is scripture when we can't read it any where in the words of the book?
It can't be proven by dogma, private interpretation, suggestion, implication, assumption, technicality, theology, scholars, cemetery or rather seminary pupils and instructors.
I will argue that nothing in life can ever be proven. This is why we have evidence of things, and logic and reasoning, which are gifts God has given us (reference Isaiah 1:18, Deuteronomy 17:6)
I will also argue that whenever we read any text or argue any point, we are by nature interpreting that text, or other perspectives. So, I believe interpretation, through certain justifications like sound theology, and based scholarship can be things we can use as evidence that a claim is more likely true than not, when it comes to scripture.
Why is this? Scripture say let God be true and every man a liar. So no man according to the scripture can be truthful outside of/aside from God of the scripture.
We have right here Con interpreting scripture. He reads scripture and then says," So... according to the scripture..."
This is the definition of interpretation.
Also, he is here, referring to Romans 3:4 which put into context, says:
" What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the [a]oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be [b]true but every man a liar. As it is written:
“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”"
The scripture is not saying here that every man is a liar, THEREFORE we shouldn't accept anything that man says.
If this were the case, we couldn't take scripture to be true, because scripture was written by man. The Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible is the word of God, however, man still wrote it.
Another, more understanding translation, reads this verse as:
"Then what’s the advantage of being a Jew? Is there any value in the ceremony of circumcision? 2 Yes, there are great benefits! First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the whole revelation of God.[a]
3 True, some of them were unfaithful; but just because they were unfaithful, does that mean God will be unfaithful? 4 Of course not! Even if everyone else is a liar, God is true. As the Scriptures say about him,
“You will be proved right in what you say,
and you will win your case in court.”[b]"
"Is Jesus Christ , son of God son of Mary in heaven now?"
I say no. The son of God son of Mary, son of David is not in heaven.
The son of God son of Mary was flesh and blood.
The scripture say flesh and blood cannot inherent the kingdom of God.
That'll be the first witness to this.
First Corinthians 15
"49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
Let's first read Corinthians 15 in context then try to see if this argument still makes sense.
Cons claim is that because 1 Corinthians says flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, therefore Jesus is not in heaven.
Let's check this.
1 Corinthians 15:45-53
"45 The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.”[h] But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. 46 What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. 47 Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. 48 Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. 49 Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like[i] the heavenly man.
50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever. 51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed! 52 It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. 53 For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies."
After reading this passage we can see the obvious flaw in CON's interpretation of this passage.
Con is arguing that Jesus cannot be in heaven right now, with the false assumption that Jesus is in the same body and is of the same seed of man.
1. Christ was not of the seed of Adam; therefore, he was not in a sinful body. Therefore, Christs body was perfect and blameless and does not meet the standards of "These dying bodies" referenced in 1 Corinthians.
2. The resurrection of the dead (just like Christ was on the 3rd day) gives the dead new body's that can inherit the Kingdom of God, through Christ, who is the door (reference John 10:9-16).
3. Verse 49 tells us that we will be like the "heavenly man" referring to Jesus.
"Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like[i] the heavenly man."
As you can see, a little context fixes everything.
Now also bearing the image of the heavenly, no flesh and blood can be there in.
Scripture say who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
The son of God son of Mary died on the cross. The centurion said truly this was the son of God .
Scripture said though we have known him after the flesh, hereafter know we him no more.
In the book of John, teaches his flesh he gave for the life of the world. Blood was shed and so out it came blood and water .
Then in the book of Luke, Jesus said, handle me and see , for a spirit have not flesh and bone as you see me have.
The son of Mary was flesh and blood. That did not enter into heaven. The book of John teaches in verse 53 of chapter 6 :
"Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you".
Con is saying that Christ = his flesh and blood, therefore Christ, didn't enter heaven.
Scripture would disagree.
1 John 1:14:
"So the Word became human[a] and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness.[b] And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son."
The Word (Jesus) became flesh. But he isn't defined by "flesh" given that he was still The Word in the beginning with God (reference John 1:1-6)
As the scripture say no more to return to corruption.
That body God took part of as the children are partakers of the earthy, natural bodies rose and was changed and glorified. No more to return to corruption, what could die and seek corruption.
Although he was made sin, so that he would die, he was lifted back up and rose again.
Totally a different state than what Mary gave birth to and is not in heaven .
No where will you find after he rose from the grave the son of God son of Mary which was before he died.
Father God was put to death in the flesh that died on the cross and rose again.
Yes the son was the Father whom they pierced.
God was manifested in that flesh and received up into glory . The great high priest that passed into heaven after the order of Melchisedec.
Which is, which was, which is to come, the Almighty.
If you are saying Christ, and The Father are the same, then you are feeding into Modalism, which is a heresy.
