Is death just another life?

[Hoping]

You're literally arguing with scripture at this point, heretic!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Bible Gateway passage: John 1:1, John 1:14 - New King James Version

The Eternal Word - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

www.biblegateway.com

Jesus IS and WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE the LOGOS.

Are you @keypurr?

You just quoted me with scripture after saying I was wrong.
Thank you.

 

[Derf]

You posted that Jesus is God. Is there a time that God did not exist?

We know that Jesus took on human flesh at a point in time. So stating that obvious fact is obvious.

What we know is that "the Word" took on flesh at a point in time. At approximately the same point in time, He was given a name He had previously never used before, as far as we know. The name "Jesus" is associated with "the Word" only after He, "the Word", took on flesh. So it's legitimate to say "Jesus never existed before the incarnation," as long as, by "Jesus", one is referring to the man conceived in Mary.

 

[Right Divider]

What we know is that "the Word" took on flesh at a point in time. At approximately the same point in time, He was given a name He had previously never used before, as far as we know. The name "Jesus" is associated with "the Word" only after He, "the Word", took on flesh. So it's legitimate to say "Jesus never existed before the incarnation," as long as, by "Jesus", one is referring to the man conceived in Mary.

Jesus associated Himself with a person that existed before the world was.

John 17:5 (KJV) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You just quoted me with scripture after saying I was wrong.
Thank you.

Yes, that's usually what happens when someone like you makes an error. In order for someone to know that they're wrong, first they have to be told that they're wrong, Then evidence is presented.

You are wrong, therefore I stated that you are wrong (recognizing reality is healthy), and then quoted the scripture that you were in conflict with.

The appropriate response is to acknowledge your error, and then change your beliefs accordingly.

The incorrect response, as you have done, is to simply dismiss what I have said, as if it doesn't apply to you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What we know is that "the Word" took on flesh at a point in time.

Yes, and?

At approximately the same point in time,

Wrong.

Unless you're being very generalistic here, Jesus did not acquire the name "Jesus" until after nine months in the womb plus eight days after his birth, as per Hebrew tradition. (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:21; per Genesis 17:10-14)

Prior to that, He was simply referred to as "the Child"... EXCEPT by the angel that appeared before Mary (Luke 1:31), and by the authors of the books in recording the history.

He was given a name He had previously never used before, as far as we know.

Why does that mean he's a different Person than the LOGOS?

People take on new names all the time. They don't become different persons when they do.

The name "Jesus" is associated with "the Word" only after He, "the Word", took on flesh.

Actually, that's false.

Note what Luke said:

And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 2:21 - New King James Version

Circumcision of Jesus - And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

www.biblegateway.com

"The LOGOS became flesh and tabernacled among us." (John 1:14)

"Jesus," "The name given by the angel BEFORE HE WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB," was given to the LOGOS on the day of his circumcision.

I brought this up in another thread, and I don't think I ever responded to your reply to it, but let me bring it up again, because it makes our point extremely well:

The City of New York was founded in 1624.

It was not called "New York" until 1664, 40 years after its founding. Prior to 1664, it was known as New Amsterdam (the name given in 1626 to the trading post that existed there).

Did the city of New York exist before 1664?

If not, then the history books are wrong, and we should say that New York was founded in 1664, rather than 1624.

But there was no "founding" of anything where "New York" is located in 1664, so that would be wrong too.

In the same way, The Person Whom we refer to as "Jesus" existed prior to the point where He was given that name, and was given that name before He was conceived by the angel, and He was named Jesus on the day of His circumcision.

He is literally Immanuel, "God with us."

So it's legitimate to say "Jesus never existed before the incarnation,"

Saying, "Jesus never existed before the incarnation," is false, because Jesus DID exist before the incarnation. He just did not take on that name until 9 months and 8 days after the incarnation, and He was given that name by the angel BEFORE He was conceived in Mary's womb.

as long as, by "Jesus", one is referring to the man conceived in Mary.

The man conceived in Mary and the Person called "LOGOS" are one and the same. They are not two different People.

 

[Derf]

It astounds me that you first argue with what I say, then you repeat it as the countervailing truth. I said this:

What we know is that "the Word" took on flesh at a point in time. At approximately the same point in time, He was given a name He had previously never used before, as far as we know. The name "Jesus" is associated with "the Word" only after He, "the Word", took on flesh.

And you answered this:

Wrong.

Unless you're being very generalistic here, Jesus did not acquire the name "Jesus" until after nine months in the womb plus eight days after his birth, as per Hebrew tradition. (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:21; per Genesis 17:10-14)

Prior to that, He was simply referred to as "the Child"... EXCEPT by the angel that appeared before Mary (Luke 1:31), and by the authors of the books in recording the history.

Of those underlined statements, one says He was called Jesus 9 months and 8 days after conception (which certainly fits the "approximate" time frame compared to all eternity, don't you think?), and the others says, just a little time before conception, that the name was to be applied to Him.

I don't find any fault with your answer there, except the "Wrong" part. How can that be? How can you say I'm wrong for stating the same thing in slightly different wording?

Surely you're not arguing just for the sake of arguing, are you? I know we all get our adrenaline flowing with these...um...discussions, but don't we need to temper it a bit as brothers in Christ? Or is the whole point of these discussions to find out who is a brother and who isn't so we can exclude them??? I hope we can find points where we agree...sometimes at least...and then use those to work through the scriptures to find the true meaning of the scriptures.

But if we all just take what we think we know, from our preconceptions (pun intended), is absolute truth and bash each other over the head with it, we probably need to stop calling ourselves "Christian". And none of us will ever learn.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It astounds me that you first argue with what I say, then you repeat it as the countervailing truth. I said this:

And you answered this:

Of those underlined statements, one says He was called Jesus 9 months and 8 days after conception (which certainly fits the "approximate" time frame compared to all eternity, don't you think?), and the others says, just a little time before conception, that the name was to be applied to Him.

I don't find any fault with your answer there, except the "Wrong" part. How can that be? How can you say I'm wrong for stating the same thing in slightly different wording?

Surely you're not arguing just for the sake of arguing, are you? I know we all get our adrenaline flowing with these...um...discussions, but don't we need to temper it a bit as brothers in Christ? Or is the whole point of these discussions to find out who is a brother and who isn't so we can exclude them??? I hope we can find points where we agree...sometimes at least...and then use those to work through the scriptures to find the true meaning of the scriptures.

But if we all just take what we think we know, from our preconceptions (pun intended), is absolute truth and bash each other over the head with it, we probably need to stop calling ourselves "Christian". And none of us will ever learn.

You must have completely ignored the part where I said:

Unless you're being very generalistic here,

"At approximately the same point in time" only really works when you're talking on the scale of decades or more.

OBVIOUSLY, from the perspective of all eternity in both directions, 9 months and 8 days is hardly worth shaking a stick at.

But it's still 9 months and 8 days.

Do you get what I'm saying?

 

[Derf]

You must have completely ignored the part where I said:



"At approximately the same point in time" only really works when you're talking on the scale of decades or more.

OBVIOUSLY, from the perspective of all eternity in both directions, 9 months and 8 days is hardly worth shaking a stick at.

But it's still 9 months and 8 days.

Do you get what I'm saying?

The angel gave the name before He was conceived. Joseph and Mary gave Him the name about 9 months and 8 says later. Those two naming events bound the conception. "Approximately" works quite well for such circumstances.

Unless you are determined to now squabble over the definition of "approximately".

 

[JudgeRightly]

The angel gave the name before He was conceived. Joseph and Mary gave Him the name about 9 months and 8 says later. Those two naming events bound the conception. "Approximately" works quite well for such circumstances.

Unless you are determined to now squabble over the definition of "approximately".

Says the one who completely ignored the "out" I gave myself when I said "Unless..."

Who's the one squabbling, again?

I'm still waiting for you to address the rest of my post, yet you seem hung up on the least significant part of it.

Talk about straining a gnat...

 

[Right Divider]

The angel gave the name before He was conceived. Joseph and Mary gave Him the name about 9 months and 8 says later. Those two naming events bound the conception.

The angel did not pick the name. God did that. When did God do that? We don't know. For all we know, God picked that name before the foundation of the world.

 

[Clete]

Jesus was both man and God. As such He did not exist. As God, He did, but that was before He was Jesus. To say, "Jesus existed from all eternity," has two possible meanings. If you pick one, and your debate opponent picks the other, you might both be right...until you say the other guy is wrong.

This is called the "false dichotomy fallacy." It's great for maintaining adversarial relationships. But Christians are called to be united rather than divided, whenever and wherever we can be. Asserting false dichotomies is definitely not a good tactic.

YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!!

It is precisely the opposite of a false dichotomy. He whom we call Jesus has existed FOREVER and will do so FOREVER MORE! He is the One Who created all things. While He was in the flesh, Jesus Himself claimed to have existed BEFORE Abraham. He is the "I am." and calls Himself the Alpha and Omega.

For those of you reading this other than Derf. You can take it to the bank. Any time you come across someone who wants to believe any flavor of doctrine that teaches that you cease to exist when you die, that WILL deny the deity of Christ. I've never heard a good explanation for the correlation but it definitely exist. It's like when you smell sewer gasses and therefore know that there's an open plumbing vent, except the connection between the two isn't as obvious. I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect.

 

[Derf]

YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!!

That's pretty effective for maintaining adversarial relationships, too.

It is precisely the opposite of a false dichotomy. He whom we call Jesus has existed FOREVER and will do so FOREVER MORE!

He whom we call Jesus existed as something other than what we call Jesus. That person now exists as Jesus Christ, forever the God-man. But He wasn't the God-man at one time. This is a key point in the argument for Open Theism.

He is the One Who created all things. While He was in the flesh, Jesus Himself claimed to have existed BEFORE Abraham. He is the "I am." and calls Himself the Alpha and Omega.

Yep!

For those of you reading this other than Derf. You can take it to the bank. Any time you come across someone who wants to believe any flavor of doctrine that teaches that you cease to exist when you die, that WILL deny the deity of Christ.

I dont deny the deity of Christ. I deny the humanity of Christ before His incarnation. You can understand the difference, right?

I've never heard a good explanation for the correlation but it definitely exist. It's like when you smell sewer gasses and therefore know that there's an open plumbing vent, except the connection between the two isn't as obvious. I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect.

Maybe you should keep your sewer gasses to yourself.

 

[Derf]

Says the one who completely ignored the "out" I gave myself when I said "Unless..."

Who's the one squabbling, again?

I'm still waiting for you to address the rest of my post, yet you seem hung up on the least significant part of it.

Talk about straining a gnat...

I guess it's hard to get past the "wrong" that means "right". But see if this does it.

Yes, and?



Wrong.

Unless you're being very generalistic here, Jesus did not acquire the name "Jesus" until after nine months in the womb plus eight days after his birth, as per Hebrew tradition. (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:21; per Genesis 17:10-14)

Prior to that, He was simply referred to as "the Child"... EXCEPT by the angel that appeared before Mary (Luke 1:31), and by the authors of the books in recording the history.



Why does that mean he's a different Person than the LOGOS?

People take on new names all the time. They don't become different persons when they do.

Do they take on a new nature? If so, then they may be the same person, but that person is significantly different than before.

Christians often take on a new name when they accept Christ. They have taken on a new nature, and can be described as a "new man", or "born again". It's not just that the same person exists, but a new thing exists that includes the old person.

Actually, that's false.

Note what Luke said:

And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 2:21 - New King James Version

Circumcision of Jesus - And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

www.biblegateway.com

"The LOGOS became flesh and tabernacled among us." (John 1:14)

"Jesus," "The name given by the angel BEFORE HE WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB," was given to the LOGOS on the day of his circumcision.

I brought this up in another thread, and I don't think I ever responded to your reply to it, but let me bring it up again, because it makes our point extremely well:

The City of New York was founded in 1624.

It was not called "New York" until 1664, 40 years after its founding. Prior to 1664, it was known as New Amsterdam (the name given in 1626 to the trading post that existed there).

Did the city of New York exist before 1664?

If not, then the history books are wrong, and we should say that New York was founded in 1664, rather than 1624.

But there was no "founding" of anything where "New York" is located in 1664, so that would be wrong too.

The city didn't become something else, did it? For instance, if Washington DC was admitted as the 51st state next year, when would the state of Washington DC have been founded? Back in 1790, or in 2024?

If the man Jesus was conceived in 5 BC, when did the man Jesus begin to exist?

In the same way, The Person Whom we refer to as "Jesus" existed prior to the point where He was given that name, and was given that name before He was conceived by the angel, and He was named Jesus on the day of His circumcision.

Agreed.

He is literally Immanuel, "God with us."

Agreed.

Saying, "Jesus never existed before the incarnation," is false,

Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean "Jesus the God-man never existed before the incarnation," then it's not false.

If you mean, "The Word who took on flesh and became Jesus the God-man never existed before the incarnation, then you're right, it's false.

because Jesus DID exist before the incarnation.

Not as Jesus, the God-man. And I don't know of any other Jesus that existed before he was conceived, either.

He just did not take on that name until 9 months and 8 days after the incarnation, and He was given that name by the angel BEFORE He was conceived in Mary's womb.
because Jesus DID exist before the incarnation.

If that's how you know Jesus existed before the incarnation, then John the Baptist must have existed before he was conceived. I hope you see how ridiculous that sounds.

The man conceived in Mary and the Person called "LOGOS" are one and the same.

Not really "the same". "LOGOS" was God, but not man. Then He became man. What is different is not the same, remember? He couldn't "become a man" without being in some way different.

They are not two different People.

Agreed.

 

[Hoping]

Yes, that's usually what happens when someone like you makes an error. In order for someone to know that they're wrong, first they have to be told that they're wrong, Then evidence is presented.

You are wrong, therefore I stated that you are wrong (recognizing reality is healthy), and then quoted the scripture that you were in conflict with.

The appropriate response is to acknowledge your error, and then change your beliefs accordingly.

The incorrect response, as you have done, is to simply dismiss what I have said, as if it doesn't apply to you.

Your citation agreed with what I said.
"The Spirit of God came over Mary and she conceived a son whose name is Jesus.
He was the Word manifested in the flesh." (post # 886)

 

[7djengo7]

He did exist.

He did not exist.

Gentlemen, what exactly do we mean by "exist"?

If we mean something by "He did exist", could we verbally express it in some way sans the word "exist"?

If we mean something by "He did not exist", could we verbally express it in some way sans the word "exist"?

 

[Clete]

That's pretty effective for maintaining adversarial relationships, too.

He whom we call Jesus existed as something other than what we call Jesus. That person now exists as Jesus Christ, forever the God-man. But He wasn't the God-man at one time. This is a key point in the argument for Open Theism.



Yep!

I dont deny the deity of Christ. I deny the humanity of Christ before His incarnation. You can understand the difference, right?



Maybe you should keep your sewer gasses to yourself.

Move the goal post much?

NO ONE here has ever suggested that Jesus was a human being before the incarnation.
NO ONE here has ever suggested that Jesus was ever called Jesus before the eighth day of his Earthly life.

No one has ever suggested any such thing or anything similar to it and so if you've been in full agreement with everyone here then what are you arguing about?

 

[Right Divider]

NO ONE here has ever suggested that Jesus was ever called Jesus before the eighth day of his Earthly life.

I suggest that the angel called Jesus before His conception.

Luke 1:30-31 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:30) And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. (1:31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

 

[way 2 go]

I "admit" that the Word was God, but Jesus didn't exist until He was born of a woman.

a nothing statement sounds like you're in a cult.
Jesus is the Word , so Jesus existed before he was born

You have your beliefs, and I have mine.

the question is are your beliefs biblical or cult ?

I serve one God, and also one Lord Jesus Christ.

Is Jesus that one God ?

They will again be one when "all things are subdued into God" again. (1 Cor 15:28)

please explain what you think this verse means because it sounds like you're saying Jesus isn't God yet. that would be heretical .

(I Corinthians 15:28 [MKJV]) But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected things to Him, so that God may be all things in all.

 

[way 2 go]

When did it change from the good heterodoxy to the bad heresy?

when evidence is twisted to fit a narrative

Not true. I believe the spirit continues to exist after resurrection.

false
you twisted what I said to fit your narrative because you don't believe
"in the continued existence of the spirit\soul outside the body after physical death"
you believe the spirit ceases to exist until the resurrection

Are you sure Luke meant a human's spirit there, and not a familiar or demonic spirit?

Sadducees didn't believe in spirits , they believed only in the here and now

God created us with a spirit so we can worship him in spirit , God's spirit and our is not simply breath
that would be a foolish interpretation
(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness
(John 4:24) God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

None of which speaks against my proposal.

you are saying we are created with a mortal spirit which is not in the image of God

Samuel was a spirit and
if we start using your logic could we not reject Jesus as God ? why ?
(serious question btw: you are rejecting all the evidence of a spirits continued existence after death and claiming there is no evidence.)
No.

You tell me.

Not true (supra).

you said : I believe the spirit continues to exist after resurrection.
so not continual existence

Jesus taught continual existence
(Luke 16:22-23 [MKJV]) [22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

An extrapolation, if not outright addition, to the text.

Agreed, but maybe more than that.

Agreed.

Look closer:
1 Samuel 28:13 KJV — And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

That word "gods" comes from "elohim", which is sometimes translated "angels".

tying to twist who it was ?

Facts:
the bible says it was Samuel
she could see Samuel before Saul could
Saul could only see & hear Samuel when he surfaced.
Saul saw that it was Samuel
Saul answered Samuel's question that was directed at Saul.
what Samuel said about Saul's death came true

continual existence

(I Samuel 28:11-19)

(I Samuel 28:19) And, the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The LORD also shall deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

God is God of the living but you don't believe that
(Matthew 22:32) I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not God of the dead, but of the living
As I've explained previously, God calls them "living" because He plans to raise them from the dead.

that doesn't work , everyone will be raised from the dead

God calls Abraham Isaac and Jacob living,
he made a distinction which you are trying to erase , not every one is living


(John 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and He saw and was glad.

Then God murdered Elijah so that his spirit could be there separated from his body?

He must have murdered Elijah in your view.

You keep focusing on Moses, but Elijah didn't ever die while on earth, so if he was a disembodied spirit here, then God must have killed him to make him so.

no
Enoch and Elijah are examples of the rapture
(I Corinthians 15:50 [MKJV]) And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

the bible didn't say they were resurrected ,that absurd argument
would make Moses the first resurrected from the dead and not Jesus

Not to mention Jairus' daughter, the widow from Nain' s son, Lazarus, and a few people from the Old Testament, including Samuel. None of these were permanent, as far as we know.

so not resurrected with new bodies , like Jesus is ,and your examples died again.

Samuel wasn't resurrected then murdered

Moses wasn't resurrected
the bible didn't say they were resurrected ,
that absurd argument would make Moses the first resurrected from the dead and not Jesus.

(Matthew 17:7-8) [7] And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise and do not be terrified. [8] And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus alone.

(Matthew 17:7-8) [7] And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise and do not be terrified. [8] And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus alone.
(Acts 26:23) that Christ should suffer, that by a resurrection of the dead, He would be the first, going to proclaim light to the people and to the nations.

Amen!

sorry no Amen to a heretical view

 

[Derf]

when evidence is twisted to fit a narrative



false
you twisted what I said to fit your narrative because you don't believe
"in the continued existence of the spirit\soul outside the body after physical death"
you believe the spirit ceases to exist until the resurrection

Depends on what you mean by "the spirit".
Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV — Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

This describes death prior to Christ's resurrection. It is in keeping with Gen 3, where God described death as returning to the dust. It is NOT in keeping with the view that the spirit goes to some other place for awhile.

So if the "spirit" is the person without a body, it doesn't work. But if the spirit is some sort of life force, or breath, from God, both Gen 3 and Ecc 12 make sense.

Sadducees didn't believe in spirits , they believed only in the here and now

We can dismiss with the Sadduccees, as I believe in spirits, and I believe in the resurrection.

you are saying we are created with a mortal spirit which is not in the image of God

There is plenty of disagreement in the church about what "made in the image of God" means.

you said : I believe the spirit continues to exist after resurrection.
so not continual existence

Correct.

Jesus taught continual existence
(Luke 16:22-23 [MKJV]) [22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Perhaps that's what He meant. But I've offered another option for that passage.

tying to twist who it was ?

No. Remember that in your favorite passage, above, the angels carried Lazarus to Abraham. Why doesn't Samuel need them to carry him back to earth? So the angels could be the elohim from the Samuel story, being brought up from the grave. Then Samuel could be seen by the witch in Ramah. Then Saul sees him when he gets closer.

Facts:
the bible says it was Samuel
she could see Samuel before Saul could
Saul could only see & hear Samuel when he surfaced.
Saul saw that it was Samuel

Supra

Saul answered Samuel's question that was directed at Saul.
what Samuel said about Saul's death came true

Agreed

continual existence

(I Samuel 28:11-19)

(I Samuel 28:19) And, the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The LORD also shall deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

Yes. With Samuel: dead in the ground.

that doesn't work , everyone will be raised from the dead

Good point! But He's not the God of everyone. What's the difference? They believed in Christ, looking forward to His coming.

God calls Abraham Isaac and Jacob living,
he made a distinction which you are trying to erase , not every one is living

Everyone's spirit is living, according to you. And you're talking about spirits anyway, in that passage.

(John 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and He saw and was glad.

Right--he looked forward to Christ's coming, and to His death and resurrection, since he believed God could raise Isaac from the dead.

no
Enoch and Elijah are examples of the rapture
(I Corinthians 15:50 [MKJV]) And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

The rapture is a resurrection event. If you're correct the Elijah was already in a rapture state, then he was in his incorruptible, eternal body, and
1. He was not a spirit.
2. Jesus was not the first fruits
Are you willing to stand by that interpretation?

so not resurrected with new bodies , like Jesus is ,and your examples died again.

Supra mortem

Samuel wasn't resurrected then murdered

No, God can't murder a man.

Moses wasn't resurrected
the bible didn't say they were resurrected ,
that absurd argument would make Moses the first resurrected from the dead and not Jesus.

Not if Moses was only resurrected temporarily in some form of his old, corruptible body.

I'm not trying to blow off your point, as it's a good one. My argument is weak here.

(Matthew 17:7-8) [7] And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise and do not be terrified. [8] And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus alone.

I dont see a problem with this passage. If God brought them to the mountain without the disciples seeing it, He can remove them. But it tells us nothing of their form. ​

sorry no Amen to a heretical view

I'm trying to figure out why it's heretical