If the resurrection is spiritual...

[Theophilus]

For those that believe that the resurrection is spiritual, and that there is no physical resurrection at the end of time, how do you understand the following:

1. Was Jesus' resurrection physical?
a. If it wasn't, then why the empty tomb and the emphasis by NT writers that He was physical after the resurrection?
b. If it was, then doesn't that indicate that our resurrection will be physical, too, since our resurrection is compared to His?

2. Doesn't Psalm 16:9-10 indicate that the resurrection of both Christ and the saints is physical?

David seems to be saying that his body will "dwell securely" since Jesus' body will not be left to rot, but will be (physically) raised. So David, who's body would become dust and bones, was secure since he knew his dead, decayed body would be physically raised up, even as Jesus' body was physically raised.

How does Psalm 16 affect our understanding of the resurrection, if it is really spiritual and not physical?

I ask all this because I've always thought there would be a physical resurrection at the end of the world. I've been going over the resurrection passages in the NT, and can see how many could be (and perhaps need to be?) understood in a "spiritual resurrection" way, but I don't see how that would fit with the 2 things above.

[JLVaughn]

Welcome Theo,

First, my view of the resurrection. Paul said he taught the resurrection from the Law and the Prophets. What resurrection and what need for resurrection do we see there?

Let's start with Genesis. What type of death did Adam die "on the day he ate?" Physical or "spiritual?" Who died first? Adam or Abel?

Clearly, Adam did not die a physical death before Abel. Therefore, the curse on Adam was some undefined "spiritual" death. What is/was this "spiritual" death?

The purpose of the resurrection is to overturn this "spiritual" death.

Gen. 3 gives a few more clues. Life (which we just showed is not physical) requires access to The Tree of Life. The woman is the mother of all the "spiritually" living.

That should be a start. Now to your questions.

1. Was Jesus' resurrection physical?

Yes.

b. If it was, then doesn't that indicate that our resurrection will be physical, too, since our resurrection is compared to His?

No. Our resurrection is of the body singular, not of the bodies. (1 Cor. 15)

2. Doesn't Psalm 16:9-10 indicate that the resurrection of both Christ and the saints is physical?

Is David his body? The Psalm says David's body will rest secure, but David himself will not remain in the grave. There are lots of possible interpretations. Is David his body? Or is David apart from his body?

How does Psalm 16 affect our understanding of the resurrection, if it is really spiritual and not physical?

I believe we don't know what the resurrection is all about, because we don't know what the death Adam died was. Just saying it is "spiritual" doesn't define it. What is a "spiritual" death?

Blessings.

[Theophilus]

This is what I currently believe about Adam & death. I believe there was physical death in the world prior to the Fall. When Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he spiritually died that day.

But as a consequence of dying spiritually, Adam would later die physically, too. Gen. 3:22 seems to me to be saying that, though Adam was spiritually dead, he could still physically live forever, if he continued to have access to the fruit of the tree of life.

So because of his sin, Adam died spiritually that moment, & eventually, sin would cause him to die physically, too, since he was separated from the tree of life.

When you contrast this with Christ, because Jesus was spiritually alive (He never sinned), physical death could not keep Him. So because He was spiritually alive, He (3 days) later became physically alive.

When a sinner is baptized into Christ, at that moment, he becomes spiritually alive. And as a direct consequence of this spiritual life, his dying body will one day be made permanently physically alive, too (at the resurrection on the "last day"), since access to the "tree of life" has been restored through Christ.

When you look at Psalm 16 (as well as the importance the ancients placed on burial, as well as where you were buried - Gen. 49:29 & 50:25), it seems to me these prophets were expecting a physical resurrection at some later time. I don't know how Psalm 16:9b makes sense unless David was confident his dying body would one day be raised up and restored.

In Matt. 10:28, Jesus talks about destroying both soul and body in hell. If the final punishment involves the soul and body, would it not make sense if the final reward involves both as well?

One more thing, the belief in a physical resurrection at the end of the world seems to be a pretty deep seated belief among 1st century Jews. If this belief was completely mistaken, it seems to me that Jesus, Paul, & the NT would need to be especially clear that there wasn't a physical resurrection for everyone. I would expect a passage that said something like "No, there is no physical resurrection at the end of the world, the resurrection is only spiritual. When your body dies and rots in the ground, it is never coming back up, despite what most of you think."

I think 1 Cor. 15 makes more sense if Paul is here speaking of a physical resurrection rather than a spiritual resurrection. But what creates the tension in my mind isn't this passage, but other passages, which is why I'm here. From so many other NT passages, I would expect 1 Cor. 15 to be speaking to the events around 70 AD, but when I read the text (and consider the points I've mentioned above), I think it leans heavily to a physical resurrection at some later time. So I have this problem, and I don't know how to resolve it. Does that make sense?

[Once4all]

Theophilus, I am glad you are raising these questions! Your concerns are very well-stated and I look forward to seeing how they are answered here.

I consider myself still too new to preterism to offer solid responses to your questions, but I know there are others here who will respond and I hope to learn from their responses.

Bev

[JLVaughn]

Theo,

What was Adam's "spiritual" death? I've never heard a definition. We only know what it isn't. It isn't physical death. See the problem? We don't know what it is. We only know what it isn't.

In my book, in Chapters 11-12, I and my coauthor attempt a definition. It's merely a start at the problem. But it's still more than anyone else has done.

In 1 Cor. 15, it is "the body" that is to be raised. What body? 1 Cor. 11-14 talks about "the body of Christ, the Church, the Bride of Christ." In context, "the body" is the Church. It is not numerous individual bodies. It is one body, the corporate body, the covenant body of believers.

The bride was raised "spiritually" when the old bride Israel/Judah, the old garment, the old creation was finished, ended, put to death.

Concerning Mark 10:28, was it meant to teach about the resurrection? There's nothing in the context to suggest this. Jesus is making a point for emphasis as to who they should follow. He was not necessarily making a theological point. I feel that taking lone verses that have no context, like this, and using them to build doctrine is dangerous. The verse could mean any number of things. There is nothing in the context to limit it to what you or I think the verse says.

[Theophilus]

I'm at a disadvantage, since I am not familiar with your book. It sounds like our interpretations of Genesis have at least some things in common, though. My current view of the opening chapters of Genesis is that it isn't concerned with the whole world, but is focused upon the land, the law, and the people - not all lands and peoples. I basically hold to a somewhat modified view from Dr. Sailhamer's Genesis Unbound. Hopefully I'll get around to creating a separate thread on that soon.

Spiritual death is basically a separation. In Scripture, it is likened to a wall of separation, a veil of separation, a breaking of fellowship. We can't hang out and chit chat together anymore. To be cut off, cast out, shut out, locked out. We can no longer sit down and share a meal. You've been disowned by the family, cut out of the family will. It can be summed up in the saying "You are dead to me."

1 Cor. 15 is talking about the resurrection of dead bodies, not just Jesus' body. Just as 1 Cor. 11-14 is talking not about 1 person, but about how the various individuals within the "body" are to behave.

The Church isn't the literal body of Christ, Christ already has a literal body. Jesus is our head, and we are His body in the sense that a husband is the "head" of his wife, and that the wife's body belongs to the husband. When a man and woman are joined in marriage, they become "one flesh," but they still remain 2 different persons, 2 different bodies. Just as, together, we are the Temple of God, and yet we are individual stones. Even as we submit, we retain our individuality. I don't see anything in 1 Cor. 15 that demands Paul is only talking about a single resurrection body.

Matt. 10:28 is a lesser point, to be sure. My current belief in a future, physical resurrection isn't based upon that verse. Rather, it serves to confirm what I had already concluded on the basis of other verses. Jesus' main point there was something else, but it seems to presuppose the view of a physical resurrection at the end of time.

[Theophilus]

I have a few more questions and things to ponder, as I am not sure I fully understand the position of spiritual resurrection.

JLV, you understand 1 Cor. 15 to teach that in 70 AD, all Christians will be spiritually resurrected, but that this passage does not teach a physical resurrection? That the "natural body" refers to "old Jerusalem," and the spiritual body is the "new Jerusalem?" Is that correct?

I've been chewing on that, and was thinking about the new heavens and new earth in Rev. 21. There is still much of Revelation that I do not understand, but my view is that Revelation is generally about the doing away of the "old Jerusalem" and the arrival of the "new Jerusalem." If this is so, and if my characterization of your view on 1 Cor. 15 is correct, there seems to be a disconnect. Whereas the new Jerusalem raises up in 1 Cor. 15, as depicted as a resurrection, it comes down out of heaven in Revelation. That seems to be a mismatch.

One more thing that has occurred to me is Acts 17:30-32. Like 1 Cor. 15, I am having a hard time seeing how it could be referring to 70 AD instead of a physical resurrection on the final day of judgment.

Since Paul is addressing Gentiles and not Jews, 70 AD just doesn't seem to fit the context. In addition, if Paul was only saying that people will be spiritually resurrected, I don't see why the crowd would have responded to Paul in the manner they did.

If Jesus' resurrection is the only physical resurrection, and the resurrection of everyone else is merely spiritual, why would they sneer at that? The popular philosophy of the day taught that the physical is bad, but the spirit is good. Thus, they wouldn't have sneered at the idea of becoming a spirit upon death, but they would sneer at the idea of, once having died and set free from the flesh, to later be reunited with one's body in a physical resurrection.

They didn't sneer at Jesus' resurrection, they sneered at the "resurrection of the dead," where in the Greek, the "dead" here is plural, not singular. So it seems Paul's audience understood him to be teaching a physical resurrection at the end of time, (which would be entirely consistent with the common Jewish view on resurrection as well) which would explain their reaction.

[Once4all]

Hi theo.

Regarding Acts 17:31-32 and "dead" being plural in verse 32, isn't it also plural in verse 31? So the sense of it is that God "furnished proof to all men by raising him from "the dead ones" or from "among those who are dead."

So the sense of verse 32 is more at "they heard of a resurrection from the dead ones."

Neither verse need be interpreted to mean anything beyond Jesus' resurrection.

Jumping back to Matthew 10:28, as I re-read it, the emphasis doesn't really seem to be on the body, but on the soul. Man can kill your body, but not your soul, so do not fear man. But God can destroy both; therefore, fear God.

This led me to another place where Jesus talks about the body being thrown into hell, Matthew 5:29-30. But we know that Jesus isn't advocating removing an eye or cutting off a hand. Instead, it brings to my mind what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:13 about removing the wicked man from among yourselves. This is removing a "part" from the "body of Christ." "To deliver such a one to Satan" (1 Corinthians 5:5).

Bev

[mellontes]

Jan 26, 2010 16:42:44 GMT -5 Theophilus said:

So because of his sin, Adam died spiritually that moment, & eventually, sin would cause him to die physically, too, since he was separated from the tree of life.

Theo,

Yes or no, do you believe sin eventually caused physical death?

Yes or no, do you believe this eventually physical death is due to the aging process initiated by sin?

More to follow depending upon your responses...

[Theophilus]

Jan 26, 2010 23:14:35 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Regarding Acts 17:31-32 and "dead" being plural in verse 32, isn't it also plural in verse 31? So the sense of it is that God "furnished proof to all men by raising him from "the dead ones" or from "among those who are dead."

Yes, the dead in v.31 is also plural.

Jan 26, 2010 23:14:35 GMT -5 Once4all said:

So the sense of verse 32 is more at "they heard of a resurrection from the dead ones."

I am by no means an expert on Greek, but I have studied NT Greek a little bit. Looking at it in the original Greek, my translations, and my interlinear, I don't think it can be understood as such. It doesn't say "a resurrection from the dead ones," but "a resurrection of dead ones." They are reacting to the mention of a singular resurrection of a plurality of dead persons.

For Matt. 10:28 & Matt. 5:29-30, while they teach on other matters, I think they lend credence that Jesus took it for granted (as did most Jews of His day) one's ultimate punishment is both spiritual and physical in nature, since Hell is not a place on earth (well, the valley of the son of Hinnom is, but I don't think anyone thinks Jesus is referring to this valley by Jerusalem here).

[Theophilus]

Jan 26, 2010 23:34:33 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Yes or no, do you believe sin eventually caused physical death?

In order to give a binary answer, I would need some ambiguities cleared up. By "sin," do you mean Adam's specific sin in the garden, or sin in general? By "caused," do you mean only direct causation, or would you include indirect causation, too?

Jan 26, 2010 23:34:33 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Yes or no, do you believe sin eventually caused physical death?

Yes or no, do you believe this eventually physical death is due to the aging process initiated by sin?[/quote]

I don't believe Adam's sin started an aging process, so if I understand your question correctly, my answer is no.

[mellontes]

Jan 27, 2010 0:36:53 GMT -5 Theophilus said:

In order to give a binary answer, I would need some ambiguities cleared up. By "sin," do you mean Adam's specific sin in the garden, or sin in general? By "caused," do you mean only direct causation, or would you include indirect causation, too?

I don't believe Adam's sin started an aging process, so if I understand your question correctly, my answer is no.

Hmmm...I was always under the impression that "sin in general" came about by Adam's specific garden sin. And if not, where did "sin in general" get its start?

Can you explain what you meant by "eventually (physically) die" if sin did not constitute the aging process?

The reason I ask is because if sin has ANYTHING to do with physical death, then Calvary was a complete and utter failure. If Jesus Christ paid the penalty for us so that we would not have to ever pay the penalty, and if the "wages of sin" truly is physical death (in any manner), then why do we as believers still pay the penalty for sin. Either no one has ever received salvation, Jesus was a fake, or sin has nothing to do with physical death.

John 11:25-26 - Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

[Sower]

Hi Theo,

Jan 26, 2010 11:49:30 GMT -5 Theophilus said:

For those that believe that the resurrection is spiritual, and that there is no physical resurrection at the end of time,

I believe the resurrection is spiritual, and it occurred at the end of the age.

how do you understand the following:

1. Was Jesus' resurrection physical?

Jesus was seen physical after his resurrection.

a. If it wasn't, then why the empty tomb and the emphasis by NT writers that He was physical after the resurrection?

To validate his resurrection.

b. If it was, then doesn't that indicate that our resurrection will be physical, too, since our resurrection is compared to His?

No, we don't need to prove that we were resurrected.

2. Doesn't Psalm 16:9-10 indicate that the resurrection of both Christ and the saints is physical?

David seems to be saying that his body will "dwell securely" since Jesus' body will not be left to rot, but will be (physically) raised. So David, who's body would become dust and bones, was secure since he knew his dead, decayed body would be physically raised up, even as Jesus' body was physically raised.[/QUOTE]

David was saying...For thou wilt not leave "my" SOUL in hell: "neither" wilt thou suffer thine Holy one to see corruption.

David expressed assurance that his "soul," would not be left in hell, and Jesus would not see corruption.

How does Psalm 16 affect our understanding of the resurrection, if it is really spiritual and not physical?

I doesn't.

I ask all this because I've always thought there would be a physical resurrection at the end of the world.

I believe there was a spiritual resurrection, at the end of the age.

The world will never end (Ephesians 3:21).

I've been going over the resurrection passages in the NT, and can see how many could be (and perhaps need to be?) understood in a "spiritual resurrection" way, but I don't see how that would fit with the 2 things above.

I hope I was able to shed light on the 2 things above.

Paul shed clear light on the resurrection of the dead, and what body the dead are raised with...

1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, "HOW are dead raised up: and with WHAT BODY do they come?

The answer 1 Corinthians 15:36-54.

The Sower~

[JLVaughn]

Theo,

You can read a bit of my book at my website.

I'm familiar with Sailhamer's interpretation. For the sake of those who are not, I'll summarize it. Please correct or expand as needed.

Sailhamer's view appears to have come out of the middle-ages and was shared by Usher's friend, John Lightfoot and by Whiston, the translator of Josephus.

Untold ages past, Genesis 1:1 occurred. At Gen. 1:2, a global flood destroyed everything. Gen. 1:3 starts the creation of the promised land. A local creation. It is also the original gap-theory view.

This view requires physical death to exist prior to Adam in the Garden. It allows man in general to exist prior to Adam in the garden. It allows Adam to have been "created" physically mortal, subject to physical death.

Sailhamer specifically discussed functional creation. A functional creation requires assignment of function (see Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One). That is, the Hebrew word "bara" which is commonly translated "create," would be better translated "assigned" or "decreed."

Walton explains these issues much better, but insists on a functional creation of the physical universe.

Most people see Gen. 1 as the creation of the land (only?). They deny that it concerns the law and the people. They see only two people and those two people are the progenitors of all mankind. Sailhamer's view tends to limit those two people to be the progenitors of the covenant line and a few other peoples.

I took Sailhamer a step further. Gen. 1 has nothing to do with the land itself. It is the creation of the law and the people. I realize it's a bit wild, but it works.

In the Old Testament prophets and in the New Testament, Heavens and Earth always refers to the law and the people. Most references, it can't include the land. In the rest of the Old Testament, that same meaning, law and people, works.

Terah left the physical land of Adam and Abraham traveled to the physical land of another people. Israel inherited the land of Goshen then gave it up for the land of promise. The physical land was never the issue. The covenant between God and his people was always the issue.

Full Preterism cements that on the other end. The end of the original "creation" is the end of the old law and people and the beginning of the new.

Spiritual death is basically a separation. In Scripture, it is likened to a wall of separation, a veil of separation, a breaking of fellowship. We can't hang out and chit chat together anymore. To be cut off, cast out, shut out, locked out. We can no longer sit down and share a meal. You've been disowned by the family, cut out of the family will. It can be summed up in the saying "You are dead to me."

This is good. If my father cut me off in that manner, would you call it "spiritual" death? It would be covenantal in nature. I would be dead to the family.

1 Cor. 15 is talking about the resurrection of dead bodies, not just Jesus' body. Just as 1 Cor. 11-14 is talking not about 1 person, but about how the various individuals within the "body" are to behave.

1 Cor. 11-14 talks of all of us being members of one body. It talks of us corporately, not individually. "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Notice, one body. The body. Not lots of individual bodies.

Also notice, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." The resurrection undoes Adam's death. That "spiritual" death you defined above. It has nothing to do with Abel's death.

[Theophilus]

I just want to say I am really enjoying this. There is nothing I love more than having a friendly discussion of Scripture with my fellow Bible nerds.

Jan 27, 2010 10:21:48 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Hmmm...I was always under the impression that "sin in general" came about by Adam's specific garden sin. And if not, where did "sin in general" get its start?

I don't believe in inherited sin - I believe sinners perish on behalf of their own sin. But Adam's sin is a bit different from other sins. For example, you can only introduce sin into the world once. Whereas Adam & Eve's sin in the garden introduced sin into the world, the same cannot be said of my sins.

Jan 27, 2010 10:21:48 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Can you explain what you meant by "eventually (physically) die" if sin did not constitute the aging process?

Sure. I believe that when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, that was disobedience to God, and thus, sin. That moment that he sinned, he died spiritually. I don't know that it did anything to him physically (although presumably he was slightly less hungry after consuming a little fruit).

Since sin is a contaminant, a cancer, and it tends to get worse over time, God decides to remove Adam from the garden, since he could go on living physically forever if he remained in the garden (and presumably getting worse and worse, in regards to sin). So God kicks Adam out of the garden - Gen. 3:22-23.

I take the two special trees in the garden as being literal trees, seeing as how they are presented as such, and I have no compelling reason to think otherwise. How a fruit makes one live forever, I have no idea. I would guess it isn't actually in the fruit, but that God would miraculously prolong your life for your obedience. But that is just speculation on my part.

It seems to me that Adam was created with death "built into him." For it seems that he can only live forever if he eats from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22), thus apart from the fruit of the tree of life, he will eventually die like everyone else.

The reason why I think the Genesis tree of life gives prolonged physical life instead of spiritual life is Gen. 3:22. If Adam eats this fruit, he will "live forever." That indicates to me that however he is alive, it will continue that life. Since he was already spiritually dead, yet physically alive, I believe it has to do with physical life. After all, the fruit allows him to "live forever," not "come back to life and live forever."

So I would say Adam's sin directly caused his spiritual death, and indirectly led to his physical death.

Jan 27, 2010 10:21:48 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

The reason I ask is because if sin has ANYTHING to do with physical death, then Calvary was a complete and utter failure. If Jesus Christ paid the penalty for us so that we would not have to ever pay the penalty, and if the "wages of sin" truly is physical death (in any manner), then why do we as believers still pay the penalty for sin. Either no one has ever received salvation, Jesus was a fake, or sin has nothing to do with physical death.

When the Bible says "the wages of sin is death," I believe it speaks of spiritual death, not physical death. People can physically die whether they deserve to or not - babies are innocent and have done nothing to deserve physical death. But only those who deserve spiritual death die spiritually. For "the soul who sins will die." What is most important is spiritual health, not physical health. I fail to see how physical death means Calvary failed, since the cross is about spiritual life.

I see a strong parallel between Adam & Christians. Just as Adam died spiritually the moment he sinned, and later died physically, so we Christians become alive spiritually the moment we come to Christ, and later are raised physically.

[Theophilus]

Jan 27, 2010 12:54:46 GMT -5 Sower said:

Jesus was seen physical after his resurrection.

Jesus' resurrection was physical, since His body is no longer in the tomb. This is why I find a spiritual resurrection so strange. Jesus, who is the eternal God, who was spirit from eternity, acquires flesh in the incarnation. He keeps His flesh through the physical resurrection, and goes to Heaven in it. And yet people, who are created (in part) physically, lose their bodies and forever become only spirits. That doesn't make sense to me.

Jan 27, 2010 12:54:46 GMT -5 Sower said:

Jesus was seen physical after his resurrection.

David expressed assurance that his "soul," would not be left in hell, and Jesus would not see corruption.[/quote]

But David also says, "My flesh will dwell securely." David's confidence doesn't just extend to his soul, but also to his own flesh. That makes perfect sense if he believes he will be physically resurrected one day, just like Jesus was physically resurrected. But how does it make sense if he believes his flesh will never be raised?

David was an able warrior, but his body grew feeble and frail in his later years, to the point where he needed constant attending to. How can he be confident concerning his body if he is merely expecting it to grow old, die, and rot? Psalm 16:9b is plain as day if he is expecting his body to one day be restored and transformed so that it will never grow old, get sick, or die again.

Jan 27, 2010 12:54:46 GMT -5 Sower said:

Paul shed clear light on the resurrection of the dead, and what body the dead are raised with...

1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, "HOW are dead raised up: and with WHAT BODY do they come?

The answer 1 Corinthians 15:36-54.

To which I say "Amen!" But I don't think we understand that passage the same way. According to 1 Cor. 15:44, a resurrected body is a "spiritual body." But how can a "spiritual body" be the equivalent of a disembodied spirit?

In Luke 24:37-39, we are told that a disembodied spirit does not have flesh and bones. But Jesus' resurrected body does. Thus a spirit is not the same as a spiritual body. So when we are resurrected, it will be in a spiritual body that can be touched, seen, has flesh and bones, and which leaves behind an empty grave.

[JLVaughn]

Theo,

JLV, you understand 1 Cor. 15 to teach that in 70 AD, all Christians will be spiritually resurrected, but that this passage does not teach a physical resurrection? That the "natural body" refers to "old Jerusalem," and the spiritual body is the "new Jerusalem?" Is that correct?

Yes. That's a pretty good summary.

I've been chewing on that, and was thinking about the new heavens and new earth in Rev. 21. There is still much of Revelation that I do not understand, but my view is that Revelation is generally about the doing away of the "old Jerusalem" and the arrival of the "new Jerusalem." If this is so, and if my characterization of your view on 1 Cor. 15 is correct, there seems to be a disconnect. Whereas the new Jerusalem raises up in 1 Cor. 15, as depicted as a resurrection, it comes down out of heaven in Revelation. That seems to be a mismatch.

I won't deny the direction mismatch.

However, 1 Cor. 12:12-14, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many," refers to the one body, the church. Which is the bride, etc. in Rev. 21.

Acts 17 is interesting on many levels. I don't have a good answer for you.

[Theophilus]

Jan 27, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Untold ages past, Genesis 1:1 occurred. At Gen. 1:2, a global flood destroyed everything. Gen. 1:3 starts the creation of the promised land. A local creation.

It has been awhile since I read Genesis Unbound, but this is how I remember it: Gen. 1:1 refers to the actual creation of the universe and everything in it, and is left undated. In Gen. 1:2, Sailhamer argues that it is mistranslated, and is better translated something to the effect that the [Holy] land was a desolate wasteland [as in undesirable for human habitation] covered in water . Sailhamer doesn't teach a global, destructive flood prior to the creation week.

Gen. 1:3-31 describes God, through His power and grace, transforming this worthless land into the most beautiful land, which is the Holy Land (locating the garden of Eden within the Holy Land).

Jan 27, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

It allows man in general to exist prior to Adam in the garden. It allows Adam to have been "created" physically mortal, subject to physical death.

Dr. Sailhamer insists that there was no mankind prior to the creation of Adam.

I, on the other hand, think that it is possible man lived on the earth prior to Adam - that the creation of Adam is the beginning of the seed line. And believing that Genesis is only concerned with redemptive history, not general history, it is only concerned with the origins of the Jewish people and the Messiah, and not where every people and nation came from.

Sailhamer, like myself, believe that the creation account of Adam & Eve are literal and accurate (literally made from dirt and rib).

Jan 27, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Sailhamer specifically discussed functional creation. A functional creation requires assignment of function (see Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One). That is, the Hebrew word "bara" which is commonly translated "create," would be better translated "assigned" or "decreed."

Yeah. For example, he doesn't believe Gen. 1:14 describes the actual creation of the Sun and Moon (after all, we already have light/day & dark/evening), but that God is designating a purpose for these things - to serve as distinguishing between days and seasons, since this will be necessary in order to keep the Law's requirements concerning feast days, etc.

Jan 27, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Most people see Gen. 1 as the creation of the land (only?). They deny that it concerns the law and the people. They see only two people and those two people are the progenitors of all mankind. Sailhamer's view tends to limit those two people to be the progenitors of the covenant line and a few other peoples.

I think that is a mistake on Sailhamer's part. While he insists that all mankind is descended from Adam & Eve, there is nothing in his interpretation that would require that to be so. Sailhamer is perfectly at ease with the possibility that plant and animal life evolved apart from the creation discussed in Gen. 1, but he doesn't allow that for mankind. Perhaps he has never considered the possibility that man evolved outside of the garden, and Adam was specially created within the garden. He seems to think that is man evolved, then that makes it impossible for Adam to be literally created from dirt, which is not (necessarily) the case.

Jan 27, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

I took Sailhamer a step further. Gen. 1 has nothing to do with the land itself. It is the creation of the law and the people.

As I recall, Sailhamer interprets the creation in Gen. 1 in light of 3 things: the (Holy) land, the law (of Moses), & the (Jewish) people, and that Gen. 1-3 foreshadow the old covenant.

God forms man west of the Garden, and then places him in the Garden (Gen. 2:8). God gives this man a Law. This man breaks the Law, and is driven from the Garden to the East (Gen. 3:24).

This corresponds perfectly to this:

God forms a nation of people in Egypt (to the west of the Holy Land). God then places this people into the Holy Land, the land flowing with milk and honey. God gives this people a Law - the Law of Moses. This people breaks the Covenant given through Moses, and is driven from the Holy Land to Babylon (which is to the East).

Jan 27, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

I realize it's a bit wild, but it works.

Hey, I'm no stranger to wild interpretations. I have a few of my own.

livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=any&action=display&thread=379

Jan 27, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." The resurrection undoes Adam's death. That "spiritual" death you defined above. It has nothing to do with Abel's death.

There is a spiritual life & death, and there is a physical life & death. Adam died spiritually because of his sin, and then died physically, being cut off from the tree of life for his sin. So we have to look at the context of 1 Cor. 15:21-22 and ask which death is being discussed here.

In 1 Cor. 15:21, Adam's death is contrasted with Jesus' resurrection. Since we know Jesus' resurrection was the restoration and transformation of His physical body, then it stands to reason that the death mentioned here is Adam's physical death. Thus 1 Cor. 15:22 is also dealing with physical death, not spiritual death.

[Sower]

Hi Theo,

Jan 27, 2010 15:30:50 GMT -5 Theophilus said:

Jan 27, 2010 12:54:46 GMT -5 Sower said:

Jesus was seen physical after his resurrection.

I agree.

Jesus' resurrection was physical, since His body is no longer in the tomb.

How else could he manifest himself to his disciples on the earth?

This is why I find a spiritual resurrection so strange. Jesus, who is the eternal God, who was spirit from eternity, acquires flesh in the incarnation.

Jesus was manifest in flesh to Abraham, did he go back to being a spirit?

He keeps His flesh through the physical resurrection, and goes to Heaven in it.

Paul said that flesh cannot enter heaven. Remember, Jesus appeared to Paul "after" his ascension to heaven, and Paul saw no body (Acts 9:1-8,17).

Paul later wrote, Jesus is "invisible" (1 Timothy 1:17).

And yet people, who are created (in part) physically, lose their bodies and forever become only spirits. That doesn't make sense to me.

Physical bodies are for earth, being temporal, mortal, and corruptible.

Spiritual bodies are for heaven, being eternal, immortal, and incorruptible.

Which are we promised in the resurrection?

David expressed assurance that his "soul," would not be left in hell, and Jesus would not see corruption.

But David also says, "My flesh will dwell securely

David said...Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope (Psalm 16:9).

That's while alive.

" David's confidence doesn't just extend to his soul, but also to his own flesh.

David knew God would redeem his SOUL from the grave (Psalm 49:15; Psalm 89:48), he doesn't speak about the body.

That makes perfect sense if he believes he will be physically resurrected one day, just like Jesus was physically resurrected. But how does it make sense if he believes his flesh will never be raised?

He would receive a new body.

David was an able warrior, but his body grew feeble and frail in his later years, to the point where he needed constant attending to. How can he be confident concerning his body if he is merely expecting it to grow old, die, and rot?

He expected to be resurrected to heaven.

Psalm 16:9b is plain as day if he is expecting his body to one day be restored and transformed so that it will never grow old, get sick, or die again.

Jan 27, 2010 12:54:46 GMT -5 Sower said:

Paul shed clear light on the resurrection of the dead, and what body the dead are raised with...

1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, "HOW are dead raised up: and with WHAT BODY do they come?

The answer 1 Corinthians 15:36-54.

To which I say "Amen!" But I don't think we understand that passage the same way. According to 1 Cor. 15:44, a resurrected body is a "spiritual body." But how can a "spiritual body" be the equivalent of a disembodied spirit?

Like the angels.

In Luke 24:37-39, we are told that a disembodied spirit does not have flesh and bones. But Jesus' resurrected body does. Thus a spirit is not the same as a spiritual body.

Really?

So when we are resurrected, it will be in a spiritual body that can be touched, seen, has flesh and bones, and which leaves behind an empty grave.

We will be like angels. The angels that appeared to Abraham with Jesus could be seen, and eat food (Genesis 18:1-8).

The Sower~

[Once4all]

I just want to comment on the concept of the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. I'm amazed sometimes how preterists can well explain how Revelation is so much symbolism and apocalyptic language, then look at a verse like the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven and take it literally.

Something that is said to "come from above" or "come down from heaven" means that it is godly in character or holy.

For example, James instructs believers to conduct themselves "in the gentleness of wisdom" (James 3:13). In explaining what he means, he describs the wisdom which "comes down from above" vs. "earthly" wisdom -

James 3:13-17 NASB
(13) Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.
(14) But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.
(15) This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.
(16) For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.
(17) But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.

The "wisdom from above" describes a certain quality or characterization of wisdom, that being godly wisdom. Likewise, a man who "comes from above" describes a certain quality of the character of that man, that being a godly or holy man.

Jesus refers to "he who comes from above" in contrast to "he who is of the earth" or "from below" -

John 3:31 - "He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all."
John 8:23 - And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world."

And so it is with the New Jerusalem. It is not literally up in heaven, nor does it literally come down from heaven. It is a Jerusalem that is pure and holy, opposed to the corrupt Jerusalem of the earth.

Galatians 4:25-26 NASB
(25) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
(26) But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

Bev

[Theophilus]

Jan 27, 2010 16:20:25 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Acts 17 is interesting on many levels.

Paul's sermon on Mars Hill is my favorite passage in Acts. I'm into apologetics, and studying the breakdown of Paul's logic and reasoning here is pretty cool. It is also neat to dissect Jesus' arguments against His critics, too. They provide the perfect blueprint for reaching out to nonbelievers and critics in a perfectly logical manner. I never noticed these things until I took some logic and philosophy courses a few years ago.

Many believe faith is supposed to be blind and irrational, but the Bible actually teaches that faith in God is reasonable and rational. It is disbelief, a lack of faith, that is in fact irrational and unreasonable.

[Theophilus]

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

How else could he manifest himself to his disciples on the earth?

Jesus didn't have to appear in His flesh and bone body. He could have appeared to them in a vision, like you believe He did to Paul.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

Jesus was manifest in flesh to Abraham, did he go back to being a spirit?

He manifested Himself physically to Abraham, but not in flesh and blood. Speaking of the incarnation of Christ, when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, John writes "the Word became flesh." If He became flesh at that time, that indicates that He wasn't flesh prior to then.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

Paul said that flesh cannot enter heaven.

That interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:50 can't be right. Jesus entered Heaven with His flesh and bone body (Luke 24:39, Acts 1:11).

Jesus, in Heaven, sprinkled His blood in the true Holy of Holies, according to Hebrews 9.

So when Paul says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he doesn't mean that literally. Rather, he is stating that people who live according to the flesh (as opposed to the Spirit) will not inherit the kingdom (like Rom. 8:4-14).

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

Remember, Jesus appeared to Paul "after" his ascension to heaven, and Paul saw no body (Acts 9:1-8,17).

Even if Jesus only appeared to Paul in a vision, that wouldn't prove Jesus didn't have a physical body. Since we know Jesus entered Heaven in His physical body, in the absence of something that tells us He has since discarded this body, we should assume that He is still in that body.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

Paul later wrote, Jesus is "invisible" (1 Timothy 1:17).

Yes, because Jesus is the invisible God. God (and therefore Jesus) is, in His eternal nature, spirit - invisible. But Paul also writes that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15). Literally, Jesus is the icon of God. Jesus puts a face on God, who, being a spirit, has no face. He is the invisible God with flesh on. Jesus enables us to see what can't be seen (John14:8-9).

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

Physical bodies are for earth, being temporal, mortal, and corruptible.

Spiritual bodies are for heaven, being eternal, immortal, and incorruptible.

Spirits are not bodies. In fact, calling something a spirit distinguishes something from a body.

There is a difference between a spirit and a spiritual body. A spirit simply has no body, by definition.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

Which are we promised in the resurrection?

Our physical bodies transformed into spiritual bodies. "He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. 8:11).

The Pharisees, along with most 1st century Jews, believed that there would be a physical resurrection at the end. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection. Notice we have a record of Jesus arguing with the Sadducees about the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40), but no record of Jesus arguing with the Pharisees about the resurrection.

Compare it to the nature of the Messianic kingdom. The Pharisees and the average Jew believed in a physical, worldly Messianic kingdom. But Jesus taught a spiritual kingdom instead. And we have references and arguments to that all throughout the NT. Now when you consider that the 1st century Jew (and the NT books were largely written to 1st century Jews), when thinking about resurrection, would automatically think of a physical resurrection. So where are the detailed refutations of a physical resurrection?

We have a record of Jesus disagreeing with the Pharisees over all kinds of issues, but not over the resurrection. Isn't this odd, if, as you believe, Jesus taught a non-physical resurrection? The resurrection was important to the Pharisees, the average Jew, and to Jesus, and if your view of the resurrection is correct, that is a major, major difference.

Why do we not have a record of this disagreement when we would expect to find one? Because as Acts 23:6-8, 24:15, & 26:6-8 indicate, the Christians and the Pharisees were in agreement about the resurrection - there would be a physical resurrection at the end.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

David said...Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope (Psalm 16:9).

That's while alive.

Notice the difference in the tenses. At the time of writing that Psalm, David was then currently happy and rejoicing, yet his flesh, his body will (future) rest in hope. David's body wasn't resting in hope yet (at that time), but it would in the future. If this is only talking about during his lifetime, why is it future instead of present?

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

David expressed assurance that his "soul," would not be left in hell, and Jesus would not see corruption.

According to Peter's interpretation in Acts 2:31, David was speaking of Jesus' soul not being abandoned to Hades/Sheol. I don't see these as being mutually exclusive, so I think David saw that Jesus' soul and body would not be left in the grave, and was glad and rejoiced, since he understood that this would mean that his own soul and body would not be left to the grave, either.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

To which I say "Amen!" But I don't think we understand that passage the same way. According to 1 Cor. 15:44, a resurrected body is a "spiritual body." But how can a "spiritual body" be the equivalent of a disembodied spirit?

Like the angels.

But 1 Cor. 15 doesn't say our resurrected bodies will be like the angels.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

We will be like angels

According to Jesus, in the resurrection, we will be like the angels in regard to not marrying and not dying. Where does it say that our resurrection bodies will be like the bodies of angels?

[MoGrace2U]

Flesh and blood doesn't inherit the kingdom of God because the spirit is the one who inherits, is adopted and must rise from the dead - the flesh profits nothing. Jesus made His blood offering to the Father when His spirit departed His body - that was when His spirit entered the holy of holies - not after His body was revived. As for a bodily ascent to heaven, once the clouds hid Him from view, we really don't know what other change might have taken place. John when describing Him in a vision (Rev), describes Him like the Son of Man but as an angel. Which is the same way Daniel 7:13 describes the one approaching the Ancient of Days. This One who is like the Son of Man and yet is described by John in appearance as like the Ancient of Days. No man has seen Jesus in His full glory that He had with the Father before His incarnation, but that He was returning to that same glory is what He told us in John 17. And whatever it is He is like now, is what we will be like when we see Him there.

As for Jews believing in the resurrection of dead flesh bodies, I don't think you will find that in scripture either. For even today, the Jew expects his soul to be raised from the dead, not his body. This seems to be the point of 1 Cor 15 too. One body dies, but another rises up with the seed that has been sown in a body of flesh that corrupts but rises in a spirit body that is incorruptible.

That our soul made alive in Christ now will never be found naked also explains that this change comes at death so that when we are absent from this body by death, we will be found alive and changed in a body made without hands. Which is a body like was made for Adam and Jesus, which Adam defiled but Jesus did not. And that is all the difference in the world as to why Jesus was raised and revived in the same body, but we will be given another.

[Sower]

Jan 28, 2010 1:02:48 GMT -5 Theophilus said:

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

How else could he manifest himself to his disciples on the earth?
Jesus didn't have to appear in His flesh and bone body. He could have appeared to them in a vision, like you believe He did to Paul.

Not so, Thomas said..."Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger "into" the print of the nails, and "thrust" my hand into his side, I WILL NOT believe.

Can a vision be touched? Would a vision have sufficed?

He manifested Himself physically to Abraham, but not in flesh

What then?

and blood.

Neither did Jesus have blood after the resurrection, or it would have poured from the nail prints in his hand.

Speaking of the incarnation of Christ, when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, John writes "the Word became flesh." If He became flesh at that time,

At that time Jesus was "made" flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

There's a difference between Jesus being MADE flesh (partaker of flesh of blood) to dwell among us, and being manifested in flesh to Abraham.

that indicates that He wasn't flesh prior to then.

Not really..."And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

It's a great mystery, and no one know when Jesus first manifested himself in flesh.

That interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:50 can't be right. Jesus entered Heaven with His flesh and bone body (Luke 24:39, Acts 1:11).

That can't be right, flesh is corruptible and nothing corruptible can enter heaven.

Jesus, in Heaven, sprinkled His blood in the true Holy of Holies, according to Hebrews 9.

Verse, please.

So when Paul says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he doesn't mean that literally.

I believe he does.

Rather, he is stating that people who live according to the flesh (as opposed to the Spirit) will not inherit the kingdom (like Rom. 8:4-14).

Romans 8:4-14, is about the spirit and the flesh, not "flesh and blood."

Even if Jesus only appeared to Paul in a vision, that wouldn't prove Jesus didn't have a physical body. Since we know Jesus entered Heaven in His physical body, in the absence of something that tells us He has since discarded this body, we should assume that He is still in that body.

Paul obviously knew the answer since he said Jesus is "now" invisible...

1 Timothy 1:17 NOW unto the King eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Yes, because Jesus is the invisible God. God (and therefore Jesus) is, in His eternal nature, spirit - invisible.

But Paul also writes that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15). Literally, Jesus is the icon of God. Jesus puts a face on God, who, being a spirit, has no face. He is the invisible God with flesh on. Jesus enables us to see what can't be seen (John14:8-9).

Spirits are not bodies. In fact, calling something a spirit distinguishes something from a body.

There is a difference between a spirit and a spiritual body. A spirit simply has no body, by definition.

Substantively.

Our physical bodies transformed into spiritual bodies. "He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. 8:11).

That's about regeneration of the spirit while alive.

The Pharisees, along with most 1st century Jews, believed that there would be a physical resurrection at the end. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection. Notice we have a record of Jesus arguing with the Sadducees about the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40), but no record of Jesus arguing with the Pharisees about the resurrection.

The question was about the resurrection. The Sadducees, said there is no resurrection, and Pharisees say there was.

Compare it to the nature of the Messianic kingdom. The Pharisees and the average Jew believed in a physical, worldly Messianic kingdom. But Jesus taught a spiritual kingdom instead. And we have references and arguments to that all throughout the NT. Now when you consider that the 1st century Jew (and the NT books were largely written to 1st century Jews), when thinking about resurrection, would automatically think of a physical resurrection. So where are the detailed refutations of a physical resurrection?

1 Corinthians 15:35-50.

We have a record of Jesus disagreeing with the Pharisees over all kinds of issues, but not over the resurrection. Isn't this odd, if, as you believe, Jesus taught a non-physical resurrection?

Jesus taught a resurrection like that of the angels..."For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are "as" the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30).

Do angels have spiritual or physical bodies?

The resurrection was important to the Pharisees, the average Jew, and to Jesus, and if your view of the resurrection is correct, that is a major, major difference.

The resurrection seem important to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:35-50), and if his view is incorrect, that is a major problem for all that rely upon the teaching of apostle Paul.

Why do we not have a record of this disagreement when we would expect to find one?

Why would we expect one?

Because as Acts 23:6-8, 24:15, & 26:6-8 indicate, the Christians and the Pharisees were in agreement about the resurrection - there would be a physical resurrection at the end.

The christians and the Pharisees were in agreement about their hope toward God, and the resurrection. However, it is disengenious to say they agreed upon a physical resurrection, or denied a spiritual resurrection because it's not discussed.

Notice the difference in the tenses. At the time of writing that Psalm, David was then currently happy and rejoicing, yet his flesh, his body will (future) rest in hope. David's body wasn't resting in hope yet (at that time), but it would in the future. If this is only talking about during his lifetime, why is it future instead of present?

I don't know.

According to Peter's interpretation in Acts 2:31, David was speaking of Jesus' soul not being abandoned to Hades/Sheol.

What's your point?

I don't see these as being mutually exclusive, so I think David saw that Jesus' soul and body would not be left in the grave, and was glad and rejoiced, since he understood that this would mean that his own soul and body would not be left to the grave, either.

But 1 Cor. 15 doesn't say our resurrected bodies will be like the angels.

Jan 27, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5 Sower said:

We will be like angels

According to Jesus, in the resurrection, we will be like the angels in regard to not marrying and not dying.

Right!

Where does it say that our resurrection bodies will be like the bodies of angels?

It doesn't. However, Paul gives the only clear explanation of "how the dead are raised, and with WHAT BODY"?

Paul..."thou sowest NOT that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain. BUT God "giveth it" A BODY as it hath pleased him... (1 Corinthians 15:37-38).

Proof positive, the body sown, is "not" the body resurrected.

The Sower~

[Once4all]

I recently finished reading the book Jewish Views of the Afterlife, which covers Jewish belief on the subject from Torah belief through contemporary psychology. What I remember from this book was that early Jewish belief was of a bodily resurrection, which evolved over time through belief in spiritual resurrection and even reincarnation. Jewish belief in resurrection and the world to come (Olam Ha-Ba) has as much variety in Judaism as it does in Christianity, or so it seems. The world to come is sometimes confused in Judaism with the messianic age; however, Olam Ha-Ba is a spiritual afterlife and the messianic age is an earthly time of peaceful messianic rule (like the futurists' 1000-year reign of Christ).

Here's a web page that has information about all those things:
www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm#Resurrection

Bev

[Theophilus]

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Flesh and blood doesn't inherit the kingdom of God because the spirit is the one who inherits, is adopted and must rise from the dead - the flesh profits nothing.

Every passage in the NT that talks about who does and does not "inherit the kingdom," inherit eternal life, inherit the promises, etc. have to do with how you live, not about being physically alive. For more about this, see my thread on 1 Cor. 15:

livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=prophecy&thread=381

In fact, people who were still in the "flesh and blood" were already in the kingdom - Col. 1:13, so how can you say "flesh and blood" literally cannot inherit the kingdom?

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Jesus made His blood offering to the Father when His spirit departed His body - that was when His spirit entered the holy of holies - not after His body was revived.

That isn't how a high priest makes atonement for the sins of God's people. Hebrews 9 demonstrates how the earthly high priest on the day of atonement corresponds to our High Priest and His atonement.

In Lev. 16:13-15, we learn that the high priest makes atonement for the sin of the people by bringing the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy Place, and there sprinkling the blood for atonement. Since this was the shadow that points to Jesus, it follows that Jesus would bring the blood of the sacrifice into the true Holy Place (Heaven), and there He must sprinkle His blood.

The high priest does not slay the sacrifice and then enter the Holy Place without the blood, but simply pointing "It's out there."

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

As for a bodily ascent to heaven, once the clouds hid Him from view, we really don't know what other change might have taken place.

The Bible says that, while in His flesh and bones, He entered Heaven. How does that provide grounds for speculating that He no longer has His flesh?! The safe conclusion, especially since you reference Dan. 7:13, that He entered Heaven in human flesh. I see nothing to indicate He later got rid of His fleshly body.

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

John when describing Him in a vision (Rev), describes Him like the Son of Man but as an angel. Which is the same way Daniel 7:13 describes the one approaching the Ancient of Days. This One who is like the Son of Man and yet is described by John in appearance as like the Ancient of Days.

Yes, and these descriptions aren't those who are seeing Him in the flesh, but as a vision. Of course a vision isn't going to have flesh and bones. In the visions of Daniel and Revelation, real nations are seen as fantastic monsters. That does nothing to refute the real nations depicted in these visions, anymore than these visions indicate Jesus is no longer in the flesh.

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

As for Jews believing in the resurrection of dead flesh bodies, I don't think you will find that in scripture either.

That is in the Bible, Acts 23:8. Through other writings, we know exactly what kind of resurrection the Pharisees and the average Jew believed in - a physical, bodily resurrection. This is confirmed in the NT, for when told that people had seen Jesus after His death, the disciples run to the tomb. A resurrection was a physical event. In Acts 2, Peter proves that David wasn't raised by pointing to his tomb. Thus, when the 1st century Jew heard "resurrection," it was taken for granted that it meant a physical, bodily resurrection.

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

For even today, the Jew expects his soul to be raised from the dead, not his body. This seems to be the point of 1 Cor 15 too. One body dies, but another rises up with the seed that has been sown in a body of flesh that corrupts but rises in a spirit body that is incorruptible.

It doesn't matter what Jews today believe. The NT was written within the context of 1st century Judaism, not 21st century Judaism.

A "spirit" resurrection is not taught by 1 Cor. 15. I explain that in great detail on my 1 Cor. 15 thread:

livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=prophecy&thread=381

The point of 1 Cor. 15 is to refute the heresy mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:12, the rejection of the resurrection. When you consider who it is that is rejecting the doctrine of the resurrection and why, they wouldn't have a reason to reject a "spirit" resurrection. Their denying the resurrection only makes sense if Paul taught a physical, bodily resurrection.

When you plant a seed, the seed transforms into a plant. But notice that the plant doesn't leave a seed in the ground. The seed becomes the plant. In the same way, a resurrected body doesn't leave a corpse in the ground behind it. The corpse becomes the resurrected body.

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

That our soul made alive in Christ now will never be found naked also explains that this change comes at death so that when we are absent from this body by death, we will be found alive and changed in a body made without hands.

2 Cor. 5:1-4 does not say that Christians will never be found naked.

Jan 28, 2010 10:12:51 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Which is a body like was made for Adam and Jesus, which Adam defiled but Jesus did not. And that is all the difference in the world as to why Jesus was raised and revived in the same body, but we will be given another.

According to Rom. 8:10-11, we will be resurrected in our own bodies, just like Jesus was.

[Theophilus]

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Not so, Thomas said..."Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger "into" the print of the nails, and "thrust" my hand into his side, I WILL NOT believe.

Can a vision be touched? Would a vision have sufficed?

Not for someone expecting a resurrected body, no. Jesus predicted He would be raised from the dead. To the first century Jew, they would automatically understand this to mean He was raised up in His own body. Thus when Thomas hears He is alive, Thomas demands to see the body, and to make sure this body is Jesus' body by examining the wounds of Jesus.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

He manifested Himself physically to Abraham, but not in flesh

What then?

So the 2 angels who accompanied Him, who also physically manifested themselves, were flesh, too? Presumably not, because angels are spirits. So apparently God can will for a spirit to take on a physical manifestation if He so chooses.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Neither did Jesus have blood after the resurrection, or it would have poured from the nail prints in his hand.

And, having gaping holes in His hands and feet, He wouldn't be able to walk or feed Himself (Luke 24:15-35), right? As Paul explains about the resurrection, the dead body is transformed.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

That interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:50 can't be right. Jesus entered Heaven with His flesh and bone body (Luke 24:39, Acts 1:11).

That can't be right, flesh is corruptible and nothing corruptible can enter heaven.

Then tell that to Luke, who says flesh did enter heaven!

For the correct interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:50, see my thread on 1 Cor. 15:

livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=prophecy&thread=381

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Jesus, in Heaven, sprinkled His blood in the true Holy of Holies, according to Hebrews 9.

Verse, please.

Putting together Hebrews 9 & Leviticus 16. The high priest, in order to make atonement for the sins of God's people, must bring the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy Place and sprinkle the blood there. The shadow corresponds to the substance, thus, for Jesus to serve as our High Priest and make atonement for our sin, He must anoint Heaven (the true Holy Place) with His blood.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

So when Paul says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he doesn't mean that literally.

I believe he does.

Your interpretation does not make sense in light of the context of the passage. See my thread on 1 Cor. 15 for details.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Paul obviously knew the answer since he said Jesus is "now" invisible...

1 Timothy 1:17 NOW unto the King eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

You are misreading 1 Tim. 1:17. It doesn't read as "Jesus is now invisible." It reads, "Now to Jesus [who is the invisible God] be honor and glory, etc."

Paul wrote that Jesus is the invisible God, just as in Col. 1:15, after the resurrection and ascension into Heaven, Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

Jesus, in His deity, as the eternal Spirit, is invisible. But Jesus, in His humanity, is visible due to being in His body of flesh and bones.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Our physical bodies transformed into spiritual bodies. "He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. 8:11).

That's about regeneration of the spirit while alive.

Not so. In verse 10, Paul describes the Christians' mortal bodies as being dead, even though their bodies were literally alive. They were "dead" in the sense that they would eventually die. But even in such a condition, they were already alive in their spirits because they already have Christ by virtue of being a Christian.

In verse 11, it talks about what the Holy Spirit will do in the future. He can't merely be talking about the regeneration of the spirit, because they already have that, according to the previous verse. Thus, what they will receive in the future is something different. What is that? The giving of continual life to their dead, mortal bodies. Physical, bodily resurrection.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Jesus taught a resurrection like that of the angels..."For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are "as" the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30).

Jesus never said our resurrection is like that of angels. He says in the resurrection, we will be like the angels in that we don't marry or die. Those are two different things.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Do angels have spiritual or physical bodies?

Neither, angels are spirits.

Jan 28, 2010 14:24:03 GMT -5 Sower said:

Paul gives the only clear explanation of "how the dead are raised, and with WHAT BODY"?

Paul..."thou sowest NOT that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain. BUT God "giveth it" A BODY as it hath pleased him... (1 Corinthians 15:37-38).

Those questions weren't sincere questions, Paul was anticipating the mockery of those who rejected the doctrine of a physical resurrection. This is why he answers them with "You fool!" See my thread on 1 Cor. 15 for more info:

livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=prophecy&thread=381

[Once4all]

Theophilus wrote: When you plant a seed, the seed transforms into a plant. But notice that the plant doesn't leave a seed in the ground. The seed becomes the plant. In the same way, a resurrected body doesn't leave a corpse in the ground behind it. The corpse becomes the resurrected body.

Doesn't the plant grow from the seed, but there is a shell or hull of the seed that remains and later decomposes?

[Sower]

Theo,

You said Jesus entered heaven in his resurrected body, and our resurrection will be like his.
You do realize Jesus resurrected body still bore the nail holes in his hands, and the wound in his side when he appeared to Thomas. If Jesus entered heaven in that body (as you say), and the saints will enter heaven in the bodies they were buried with,
The scene in heaven would be pretty macabre) with people that have been shot, blown up by bombs, lost limbs, burned up in fires and, amputes etc. walking around heaven in the bodies they were buried with.

But thanks be to God that's not the case. We will receive new heavenly bodies made by God.

The Sower~

[mellontes]

I have been reading what you folks have written on the resurrection and I believe you are operating from an assumption. The assumption being that the physical body/corpse/flesh and bone/etc. is somehow changed into a spiritual resurrection body on an individual basis.

Have either of you kind folks done a study on "flesh" and all its related phrases and usages? I had been taught for 20 years that the works of the "flesh" represented basic sinful human nature, or something similar. However, if you are very diligent in your study you will find that flesh is OFTEN compared with the old covenant in some way whether it be the people or the practice.

When Paul got salvation on the Damascus road the Bible says he did not confer with flesh and blood. Most would say this is just a bland reference to people in general but I think it is much more specific as referring to his Pharisee roots. It might very well have been the Sanhedrin council. I just think it is old covenant related.

When Jesus was incarnated, it is said that He came in "likeness" of flesh. It does not say human "flesh." But that is exactly how we interpret it. Jesus appeared in the last days. I think He began in the old covenant and ended in the new covenant.

The whole NT is about the exchange of covenants, from the old to the new, from the flesh to the spirit. I think that very few occurrence of "flesh" are actually related to the human body, but there are a few.

And one last thing to Theophilus...

Theophilus said:

That interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:50 can't be right. Jesus entered Heaven with His flesh and bone body (Luke 24:39, Acts 1:11).

1. Luke 24:29 does not speak of Him entering into heaven

2. Acts 1:11 has nothing to do with an exegesis of a physical body. Chirst's coming and going (VERBS) is what is being compared - not a state (NOUN). That verse is probably a leading contender among the most abused verses in the Bible.

Supposing, after visiting you for three years, I jumped into my car, started the engine, revved the engine to about 6,000 RPM, popped the clutch, squealed my tires, smashed into the fence, knocked over a fire hydrant, and then continue to speed away. And then when my cousin comes over he tells you that I will be coming again in the same MANNER that I had left, would you immediately say to him, "Hey dude, you mean to tell me that he is coming in his physical body?"

Now, I realize that is a pathetic allegory, but nonetheless, it is exactly how Acts 1:11 is interpreted...eisegetically with an preconceived idea about the physical return...

Peace to all!