Gender in Resurrection?

[brucebohn]

Yeah, I would much rather prefer listening to your research than interspersed with your former colleague. The Two Seedline doctrine does need some rehabilitation considering the catholic infusion of some things. In the last couple of years, you've helped me understand a number of things better than before you came on the scene. But, there still persists a number of perplexing and conflicting issues in my understanding of the Genesis narration.

Mark



Note:
I must admit, like Mark, I also have wrestled with certain issue's related
to the Genesis narration, issue's in which there simply is not conclusive
information available to obtain a better understanding.. I can only hope
that one day we shall. I would like to think that Adam's sin was nothing
more than accepting Eve's transgression instead of casting her off, but,
as Bill says , this is just simply where scripture leaves us!

[Kentucky]

I did not elaborate upon what cannot be proven. Adam ate too, and scripture leaves it at that. The Talmud has an opinion, from which the Lilith tale is developed. Note that I called it a tale.

An enigma indeed. Lilith is concocted for a heterogeneous liason while, on the other hand, the rabbis sanction homosexuality.

All Adam had to do in order to eat along with Eve was to accept Eve in her condition of sin, and that is good enough for him to be considered a partaker of her sin, in my humble opinion. As Paul says, Adam was not deceived, but made a conscious decision to do so.

So the biblical principle (actually the Divine Law) involved here is sin is sin regardless of the person being conscious of its commission. It goes to the old axiom 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.'

That is where Scripture leaves us, and it is where I would prefer to keep it.

Which should be the proper time to leave something to rest when it can't be proven. This is probably when heresy begins to rear its ugly head and manifest itself as dogma, which is why apostasy was so predictable. No doubt, this is what Dewey Tucker has engaged in, passing something off as truth when it is found wanting for proof. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" Deut. 19:15.


Mark

[Joe]

You can't prove either way with Scripture that Santa Claus does or doesn't exist... That's the EXACT same logic [false logic] you are trying to use to prove female angels, it is no logic at all. Your logic is fool's logic and you are a fool.

It is not incumbent on me to use scripture to prove that they DO NOT exist, if you want to claim they exist, you must prove your claim. A positive claim must be affirmed by the one putting forth the claim. Absence of evidence to negate the claim does not automatically validate and affirm the claim.


If you think that I am delusional because I refuse to accept your corruption of logic and your arguments based on logical fallacies, "well there's no proof they don't exist so they must exist" then you are a deluded fool and you are academically dishonest.

It is not the same, your premise is not demonstrated by Scripture either, you have the same responsibility. You are basically following your usual script and failing to realise that it is not working here, it is a tactic, not a valid rebuttal. You cannot, under any circumstance, validate your own assertions ...so you are using some pathetic and weak-minded "prove it" tactic ...it is like talking to a parrot.

The fact that you cannot prove your, frankly weaker, premise either; makes you a hypocrite because you have nothing to base your ridiculous premise on, I don't know what logic you are referring to... you are seemingly incapable of logic/reason and forming a plausible argument. Maybe you should actually read over the numbered premises I gave and compare them to your premise (listed as 3). I don't claim to know the mind of God, I have used what He gave me.

Calling me a fool after your pathetic "dogs and cats on an island" analogy ...you have so much arrogance for such a weak-mind. You are looking for 'heresies', everywhere, so that you may make a false accusation.

I'm out-of here.

[SwordBrethren]

You can't prove either way with Scripture that Santa Claus does or doesn't exist... That's the EXACT same logic [false logic] you are trying to use to prove female angels, it is no logic at all. Your logic is fool's logic and you are a fool.

It is not incumbent on me to use scripture to prove that they DO NOT exist, if you want to claim they exist, you must prove your claim. A positive claim must be affirmed by the one putting forth the claim. Absence of evidence to negate the claim does not automatically validate and affirm the claim.


If you think that I am delusional because I refuse to accept your corruption of logic and your arguments based on logical fallacies, "well there's no proof they don't exist so they must exist" then you are a deluded fool and you are academically dishonest.

It is not the same, your premise is not demonstrated by Scripture either, you have the same responsibility. You are basically following your usual script and failing to realise that it is not working here, it is a tactic, not a valid rebuttal. You cannot, under any circumstance, validate your own assertions ...so you are using some pathetic and weak-minded "prove it" tactic ...it is like talking to a parrot.

The fact that you cannot prove your, frankly weaker, premise either; makes you a hypocrite because you have nothing to base your ridiculous premise on, I don't know what logic you are referring to... you are seemingly incapable of logic/reason and forming a plausible argument. Maybe you should actually read over the numbered premises I gave and compare them to your premise (listed as 3). I don't claim to know the mind of God, I have used what He gave me.

Calling me a fool after your pathetic "dogs and cats on an island" analogy ...you have so much arrogance for such a weak-mind. You are looking for 'heresies', everywhere, so that you may make a false accusation.

I'm out-of here.

You're mentally a Jew, you start the crap of name-calling, calling me a "vain and delusional man" and then when I say that you're acting hysterical and you behave effeminate with absurd debating tactics, you scream victim and accuse me of using ad hominem techniques.

You are using Jewish debating tactics 101.

[wmfinck]

Somehow I don't think some of us are paying much attention to what the rest of us are posting. Let's check our egos for a few minutes and read the in- between posts, please.

[matthewott]

While I know this thread has been locked (more than likely by you, Bill), I am going to exercise my admin powers to throw my 2 cents in.

First, this forum is here for EXACTLY these kinds of discussions and debates. It's just a damn shame when obvious brethren allow amicability to deteriorate like we're arguing with the likes of a Martin Lindstedt. I fully understand that we can all get heated and frustrated...but are we not Christians?!?! Are we going to forsake Christ "for the sake of Christ"?!?! We all need to understand that when we venture out into territory such as this thread topic (I am currently doing the same with the Great Flood thread) we are knowingly opening a can of worms. As Israelites CHOSEN by Yahweh to hear and to see the Truth, it is beholden to us to bear this responsibility with maturity and humility, as no one of us is above the other.

Second, I think this is a great topic! I don't want to sound pretentious, but I'd rather wrap my mind around these more "ethereal" topics, as they require us to investigate much deeper into scripture, causing us to really LISTEN to the Word of God, and inspire us to dig into literature produced by our own people as well. And while it seems that determining "gender in resurrection" is a trivial pursuit (lol, pun unintended), a scholarly inquiry not only may produce a legitimate answer, but it will open the door to many other Truths as well.

And third...well, third is going to be my take on this subject.

First, let me start with some questions concerning Gen. 6: If there were any female fallen angels on earth, why is there no reference to them "taking husbands of all they chose?" Why are these fallen angels referred to as the "sons of God" and not the "sons and daughters of God"? While the text of Gen 6:1-4 is somewhat cryptic, there is a definitive effort to make it known that these SONS of God (fallen angels) were taking our white women. So, according to this narrative, two ideas can be extrapolated for this thread: that if there are male and female angels, that only the male angels can be jerks and assholes and needed to be cast down to earth, or that there are no female angels at all...also, that if these beings were just the descendants of the fallen angels, they DEFINITELY would NOT be referred to as "sons" or even "daughters" of God! Next, going back to Adam and Eve, I firmly believe that the sexual event that precipitated the "original sin" (going catlick on you guys, lol) was performed with one of the descendants of the fallen angels, as Eve ate of the FRUIT, not the ROOT, so if Adam had indeed had sexual intercourse, it can be surmised that it would have been with a female of the mixed race...ESPECIALLY if scripture deems that Adam was NOT deceived. I cannot and will not accept that Adam, not being deceived, would willingly perform an act of faggotry! I am with Bill on this one, that Adam's acceptance of Eve's sin (probably witnessing and not stopping it) was his sin, as scripture is explicit that if we do not condone the sin, that we are just as guilty as if perpetrating it.
Now, let's assess what we DO know about the angels; that they are usually referred to and described as MEN throughout scripture,but sometimes described as multifeatured creatures...a good example is a sphinx. Angels are "supernatural" beings, with obvious "powers" that transcend this earthly plane, so I don't think it is a far stretch to envision them as "multigendered". Anyone here who truly understands DSCI also understands that the "other races" are the children of these fallen angels...but what did they mate with to produce these lineages? These fallen angels had to have the ability to alter their appearance, shape shift if you will, in order to copulate, and ultimately fertilize a different specie of God's creation to corrupt it into their own...so how far fetched is it to surmise that they can even change their gender? There are creatures on this earth that can do the same thing! Hell, humans even do it, but it requires jewish sorcery (imagine that!)
Before I turn this into a novel (and I think I could at least turn this into a short story if I wanted to), I want to return to what Christ said concerning the resurrection...that there will be no marriages, that we will be similar to the angels. To me, that means there is no need for sex, especially since we have already propagated billions and billions of children for the Almighty. The need for "man and woman" is gone. We will all be like Christ. The whole gender issue, IMHO, is a temporary construct of God, to fulfill his will. Sex is the biggest downfall of man...why would it ever be an issue in the Kingdom of Heaven? I personally look forward to eternity NOT worrying about my penis getting me into trouble