|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 5, 2011 7:37:15 GMT -5
I think it would be helpful to all interested and especially to Jeff for us to state where we are today in our views.
I find that when I understand where a person is coming from as far as their framework then it is easier to have a conversation with them that is fruitful.
I right now (ATT view LOL) believe that:
1. The earth is more than 6,000 years old.
2. The language in Genesis depicts the assignment of function vs. physical material things coming into existence (i am trying to not be confusing with using terms like creation) and that He accomplished this in separate periods or ages of time (not 24 hr days x 6)
3. God caused all material physical things to come into existence.
4. The law was given in the garden (possibly the whole law but not sure on this)
5. Adam was the first man in covenant fellowship relationship with God
I am reformed (ATT) as I hold to the five solas. I am seriously relooking thru the TULIP within the preterist framework. Not sure where I will end up. I consider myself a full preterist. I do not completely understand the entire covenant creationist viewpoint so therefore I do not embrace the view.
Going into this study I will try to be open minded but here are some of my big sticking points - and it could be that I just dont understand them fully so please bear with me.
1. When is a fish a fish and when is it a gentile. (how to know)
2. View of Satan - a real entity? or figurative of our sin?
3. The removal of the progression from natural to spiritual or physical type to spiritual antitype.
4. The forced feeling of the end HAS to match the beginning.
I have others but those are my main struggles right now. I hope that will give you an idea where I am at - especially since I have grown a lot since we ended our study a year ago. Thanks Allyn for providing the place for us to do this...and thanks Jeff for being willing to discuss again...and again....and again! (i am a sloooow learner!)
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 9:55:19 GMT -5
Wanda, Thank-you Number 2 is pure Walton, 4 & 5 Martin & Vaughn. Everyone, please notice, Wanda's statement #5 does not require other men to precede or be with Adam, but it does not disallow it either. It is a well-written, open statement that allows the entire question to be addressed. Number 1 is a good question that I don't have a good answer to. It's a struggle for me also. Number 2 is a question that physical creation with preterism can not give a good answer to. It was one of the drivers for me. It was a surprise confirmation for Tim. Is Number 3 based on some understanding of 1 Cor. 15:46? The forced feeling of the end is caused by our lack of familiarity with the culture and our own tendency to place our modern culture's understanding of the "world" onto ancients who had no such understanding. Covenant creation has the similar forced feeling on Genesis until you use it and you start seeing connections that you never saw before. I recommend Tim's sermons www.truthinliving.org/index.php?pr=Sermons which do nothing to explain covenant creation, but will show you what the world looks like from that view. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 5, 2011 12:47:04 GMT -5
1. When is a fish a fish and when is it a gentile. (how to know)
Something in the context must give the clue that a metaphor is being established, otherwise it is up for grabs. Which means the fish has to stay a fish until such a clue is found!
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 13:39:34 GMT -5
1. When is a fish a fish and when is it a gentile. (how to know) Something in the context must give the clue that a metaphor is being established, otherwise it is up for grabs. Which means the fish has to stay a fish until such a clue is found! Robin, This is hard to understand and hard to say.  I'll hug you while I say it. If a fish has to stay a fish until a clue is found, then you are dead wrong until a clue is found. This requires passing judgment, only to rescind that judgment later. For example, In Acts 10:9-16, you would be wrong in your understanding. There is no clue in vss. 9-16 that the "fish" were gentiles. It is only in verse 28 that we learn this. By your own principle, you would have been wrong when you read the passage. Because you have insisted in reading it wrong, you might miss the clue. It is marked off in a different section with a different heading. Many people won't even be looking for the clue, especially if the clue is more subtle than vs. 28, and/or is farther from the passage in question. I believe it is better to be open to either possibility until a clue is found. I try not to pass judgment on the meaning of the text until I am required to. Did you ever read the story of Man-Bull the wanna be king and the true Shepherd King that John posted on DiD? deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/a-sumerian-literary This was an ancient Sumerian story from about the time and place where Terah and his father lived. It was written in the same language Terah likely spoke and wrote. No one today could read it until a translator decided that a "fish" was not a "fish" and intentionally read it that way. That document contains literary tricks that today, only the Chinese languages could duplicate. The original language of Genesis 1-11, is the same language of the Man-Bull story. It was an extremely sophisticated language with features English does not have. The Man-Bull author went out of his way to conceal the object of his political satire. But even an author who wanted his point to be clear, would have used some of these same tricks, not to hide his message, but to emphasize it. The end result, though clearer to his audience, could be confusion for a later audience that translated/compiled/or-whatever-was-done to get this ancient history in Sumer to ancient Hebrew. "A fish has to stay a fish until a clue is found," is the very problem of dispensationalism. "H&E will pass away." "H&E must refer to the physical universe until a clue is found." By the way, because H&E must refer to the physical universe, we ain't gonna look for no stinking clues. We are going to take it literally. We know the parousia is still future because the H&E has not passed away. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 18:45:01 GMT -5
I think it would be helpful to all interested and especially to Jeff for us to state where we are today in our views. Good idea, Wanda. I'll use your format. I right now believe that: 1. The earth is about 6,000-8,000 years old (YEC). 2. The language in Genesis 1 depicts a simplified account (geared to the knowledge level of the people who received it) of the creation of the physical heavens and earth. 3. Genesis 2 designates the Garden as the first temple and God sets apart Adam as the first "priest." This is a la G.K. Beale's book The Temple and the Church's Mission. 4. God caused all material physical things to come into existence. 5. Adam was the first man in covenant fellowship/relationship with God. I am not Reformed (neither Calvinist nor Arminian, though if forced to choose between the two, Arminianism would win). I hesitate to label myself as adhering to any systematic theology because my beliefs are molded by the results of my independent studies of the Bible. Therefore, they don't fit neatly into any such system nor do they align neatly with any of the man-made creeds of Christendom. I consider myself a full preterist. I do not completely understand the covenant creationist viewpoint and am curious enough about it to learn more. Going into this study I will try to be open-minded. Some concerns that might be difficult, include the following: 1. View of Satan - a real entity? or figurative of our sin? I left this here because Wanda included it. I am actually flexible at the present time regarding my view of Satan. The more I study this topic, the more I lean toward a generic adversary view (sometimes external, sometimes our own flesh), rather than Satan as a specific personal entity. 2. The removal of the progression from natural to spiritual or physical type to spiritual antitype. 3. The forced feeling that the end HAS to match the beginning. That's all I can think of right now. (Thanks for the jump start, Wanda!) |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
BTW, my BCS book has not been delivered yet. :-(
I will have to ask Mike Loomis if it has been mailed yet, since I purchased it through AD70.net. I ordered it on 30 December.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 19:45:20 GMT -5
Bev, 1. The earth is about 6,000-8,000 years old (YEC). 2. The language in Genesis 1 depicts a simplified account (geared to the knowledge level of the people who received it) of the creation of the physical heavens and earth. 3. Genesis 2 designates the Garden as the first temple and God sets apart Adam as the first "priest." This is a la G.K. Beale's book The Temple and the Church's Mission. 4. God caused all material physical things to come into existence. 5. Adam was the first man in covenant fellowship/relationship with God. Have you read Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, where he demonstrates that Genesis 1 is the account of God's first temple? If that idea intrigues you, then would you have a problem with the idea that this temple dedication took place 6000-8000 years ago, but that the temple was physically built over some period of time before that? That is, 6000 years ago, the temple is already built (however long it required), and Genesis 1:1 starts the dedication ceremony aka Walton? Do you necessarily require that Adam be the only man? If Adam was ordained a priest, who did he serve? A priest usually serves in a place between God and men. Who or what stood in the place of this men? By real entity, do you mean a human person, a supernatural person, or something else? This leads quickly to: In what sense did the serpent have "seed?" Were these real children? Or did the serpent have baby demons? Or was the serpent's seed covenantal? Was Jesus' "brood of serpents," this seed of the serpent? How does the serpent's seed compare to Eve's seed? And how does it all relate to "the serpent of old" in Rev. 12, who appears to still be around (in some sense)? No one has ever asked me these questions. I've never seen anyone (besides me) ask anyone these questions. So please don't feel obligated to answer them. Think about them. Can you answer them within your physical creation paradigm? I'm willing to bet that you will eventually conclude that they can not be answered. That is the power of a good paradigm. It can answer questions that you couldn't previously imagine. If you have to torture your current paradigm to answer these questions, you need to change. If your paradigm can provide a natural answer, you just have to work to find it, then you have a good paradigm. Is #2 a ref. to 1 Cor. 15:46? #3, don't we all. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 20:08:40 GMT -5
Bev, 1. The earth is about 6,000-8,000 years old (YEC). 2. The language in Genesis 1 depicts a simplified account (geared to the knowledge level of the people who received it) of the creation of the physical heavens and earth. 3. Genesis 2 designates the Garden as the first temple and God sets apart Adam as the first "priest." This is a la G.K. Beale's book The Temple and the Church's Mission. 4. God caused all material physical things to come into existence. 5. Adam was the first man in covenant fellowship/relationship with God. Have you read Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, where he demonstrates that Genesis 1 is the account of God's first temple? No, I haven't. I seem to remember that Beale referenced him, though. If that idea intrigues you, then would you have a problem with the idea that this temple dedication took place 6000-8000 years ago, but that the temple was physically built over some period of time before that? That is, 6000 years ago, the temple is already built (however long it required), and Genesis 1:1 starts the dedication ceremony aka Walton? Hmm. No, I still don't see any need to go back farther than 6000 years or so. If Genesis 1 was 6-8K years ago, and after that God planted a garden in Eden (the garden being the temple), the temple would be even younger (by how much, I don't know). Do you necessarily require that Adam be the only man? No, I don't. I've considered the idea that Adam was taken (set aside for service) from an existing population. Not saying I believe that, but I have seriously considered it. If Adam was ordained a priest, who did he serve? A priest usually serves in a place between God and men. Who or what stood in the place of this men? The people that future temples served lived outside of that temple, so presumably people who Adam would have served lived outside of the Garden. By real entity, do you mean a human person, a supernatural person, or something else?[\quote] Either, any, or. *smile* I am not certain that Satan is the "head devil" (so to speak) as modern Christianity teaches. "A satan" can be any adversary, human or otherwise. This leads quickly to: In what sense did the serpent have "seed?" Were these real children? Or did the serpent have baby demons? Or was the serpent's seed covenantal? Was Jesus' "brood of serpents," this seed of the serpent?Probably! I had not considered that specific connection before. That's in the realm of belief. How does the serpent's seed compare to Eve's seed? And how does it all relate to "the serpent of old" in Rev. 12, who appears to still be around (in some sense)? ... Good questions. Is #2 a ref. to 1 Cor. 15:46? Yes. (I feel there is more coming from you on this one...)  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 20:49:57 GMT -5
Bev, Is #2 a ref. to 1 Cor. 15:46? Yes. (I feel there is more coming from you on this one...) I wrote this little blog a few months ago. deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/first-the-natural-then-the When someone says "first the physical, then the spiritual," they have typically defined Paul's word "natural" as "physical" and Paul's word "spiritual" as "not physical." Yet two verses earlier, Paul claimed Adam was "natural" and Christ was "spiritual." How was Adam "natural" and Christ not "natural," or not "physical?" Christ ate and drank. He died. He was buried. He was just as physical as you or I or Adam. However you interpret 1 Cor. 15:46, it must make sense with 1 Cor. 15:44. If it doesn't, then it is not a correct interpretation of Paul's principle. (Either that, or a case needs to be made as to why it should not be applied to the same words 2 verses earlier.) I also talked about this passage and these issues at length at the 2010 Covenant Creation Conference. The talk is in the podcast archive at preteristradio.com/. If you have applied your understanding of vs. 46 to vs. 44 and the result made sense, I'd like to see it. This is a very hard passage and I don't have it down either.  But I do know what test to apply.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 23:24:52 GMT -5
Bev, Yes. (I feel there is more coming from you on this one...) I wrote this little blog a few months ago. deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/first-the-natural-then-the When someone says "first the physical, then the spiritual," they have typically defined Paul's word "natural" as "physical" and Paul's word "spiritual" as "not physical." Yet two verses earlier, Paul claimed Adam was "natural" and Christ was "spiritual." How was Adam "natural" and Christ not "natural," or not "physical?" Christ ate and drank. He died. He was buried. He was just as physical as you or I or Adam. However you interpret 1 Cor. 15:46, it must make sense with 1 Cor. 15:44. If it doesn't, then it is not a correct interpretation of Paul's principle. (Either that, or a case needs to be made as to why it should not be applied to the same words 2 verses earlier.) I also talked about this passage and these issues at length at the 2010 Covenant Creation Conference. The talk is in the podcast archive at preteristradio.com/. If you have applied your understanding of vs. 46 to vs. 44 and the result made sense, I'd like to see it. This is a very hard passage and I don't have it down either. But I do know what test to apply. Jeff, I agree with Robin's comments at your DID blog. Christ was raised a life-giving spirit. He began as "natural" - in a perishable body. And was raised imperishable. First the natural, then the spiritual. Natural is perishable, spiritual is imperishable. The first Adam became a living soul. In other words, his creation was into the natural, "earthy" realm. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. The second creation, a spiritual creation. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 5, 2011 23:51:20 GMT -5
Jeff, I agree with Robin's comments at your DID blog. Christ was raised a life-giving spirit. He began as "natural" - in a perishable body. And was raised imperishable. First the natural, then the spiritual. Natural is perishable, spiritual is imperishable. The first Adam became a living soul. In other words, his creation was into the natural, "earthy" realm. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. The second creation, a spiritual creation. I guess my question to you, Bev, would be to ask if we were raised (past tense) in the same manner. And whether we were or not, wouldn't that necessitate the first creation being associated with Adam and the second creation being associated with Christ (2 Cor 5:17)? I have been harping for a long time now that these are the TWO bodies of 1 Corinthians 15 - the natural body (Adam - first Adam) and the spiritual body (Christ - second Adam). It is not dealing with individual human bodies that somehow get a new body from heaven at death. We ARE the new body in Jesus Christ. We ARE that glorified body! The body that we get from heaven is that which descends at the new birth. It is the New Jerusalem "which cometh down out of heaven from my God" Rev 3:12). It is the same Jerusalem "which is above" from Galatians 4:26... Okay, I am done ranting... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 6, 2011 1:03:17 GMT -5
Jeff, I agree with Robin's comments at your DID blog. Christ was raised a life-giving spirit. He began as "natural" - in a perishable body. And was raised imperishable. First the natural, then the spiritual. Natural is perishable, spiritual is imperishable. The first Adam became a living soul. In other words, his creation was into the natural, "earthy" realm. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. The second creation, a spiritual creation. I guess my question to you, Bev, would be to ask if we were raised (past tense) in the same manner. And whether we were or not, wouldn't that necessitate the first creation being associated with Adam and the second creation being associated with Christ (2 Cor 5:17)? I have been harping for a long time now that these are the TWO bodies of 1 Corinthians 15 - the natural body (Adam - first Adam) and the spiritual body (Christ - second Adam). It is not dealing with individual human bodies that somehow get a new body from heaven at death. We ARE the new body in Jesus Christ. We ARE that glorified body! The body that we get from heaven is that which descends at the new birth. It is the New Jerusalem "which cometh down out of heaven from my God" Rev 3:12). It is the same Jerusalem "which is above" from Galatians 4:26... Okay, I am done ranting... Hey, Ted. OK, so I'm thinking out loud here, and I'm sleepy. (In fact, I was ready to go to bed and thought I'd check the forums one last time.) So that's my excuse if my words are senseless. They reside together for a time. The body is dying and will soon perish. Our spirit, which has been given new life, continues. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 6, 2011 1:37:35 GMT -5
Ted, in another thread you wrote: I would have no problem in saying, "I believe in the resurrection of the body" because I have been resurrected from that body (the natural body) that the Bible speaks of.
When I read this, this thought occurred to me. CC can't have the first covenant begin at Sinai or with the Israelites because then Gentiles would not have a natural body (as you've defined it as a covenant body) to resurrect out of. Since Gentiles were never under the Sinai law/covenant, the first covenant had to be found elsewhere; somewhere that would accommodate a resurrection opportunity to apply to everyone and not just the Jews.
Or does CC still define the Genesis covenant as being a covenant between God and a specific (subset of all) people?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 2:22:51 GMT -5
Bev, Or does CC still define the Genesis covenant as being a covenant between God and a specific (subset of all) people? How many versions of physical creation are there? They all have one thing in common. Genesis 1 is physical creation. My purpose in coining the term covenant creation was not to develop a specific doctrine, but to focus on an entirely new general way of looking at Genesis. Genesis 1 is the creation of the created thing, God's covenant. My purpose was to codify the disparate thoughts and observations of several people who were seeing that physical creation did not work. As such, all that is required is that Genesis 1 is the creation of a covenant. All these other questions and issues are actually secondary to that point. You will not find them discussed in the book. (I checked on your copy. Tim said he got the order after the PO closed on the 30th. His PO was closed on the 31st, so he mailed it Monday. Media Mail. Officially 5 to 10 business days.) You can be a physical creationist and believe that Gen. 1:1 occurred 6000 years ago or 13.7 billion years ago. You can be a covenant creationist and believe that the physical universe was created at the same time as the covenant, or that the physical universe was created 13.7 billion years before the covenant. It is meant to be a very general paradigm, created to get our heads out of the whole idea of Genesis 1 refers to the physical creation. The result? There are a few hundred covenant creationists, each with his or her own views on how the covenant ties in with either part or all of physical creation. And there are a few hundred more both/ands, who believe either Genesis 1 describes both events happening at the same time, or that Genesis 1 is sort of like dual prophecy, it occurred once as physical creation, then again as covenant creation. I believe God made that covenant with a proper subset of all then currently living people. But at the time BCS was written, I was the only one who did. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 6, 2011 11:36:03 GMT -5
Hey, Ted. OK, so I'm thinking out loud here, and I'm sleepy. (In fact, I was ready to go to bed and thought I'd check the forums one last time.) So that's my excuse if my words are senseless. They reside together for a time. The body is dying and will soon perish. Our spirit, which has been given new life, continues. That does sound sleepy...I ask if we were raised in the same manner and you say that we resided together for a time. If I understand you correctly, this past raising does not continue; it peters out at some point in time. That is what you meant by saying "for a time", right? So then, according to that understanding and if I understood you correctly, you are saying that we need to be raised again??? Would this be another spiritual raising or a new physical resurrection? It seems to me that these are the only two options left available... ...checking on the forums just before hopping into bed, eh...hmmmm, you are addicted  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 6, 2011 11:39:08 GMT -5
Ted, in another thread you wrote: I would have no problem in saying, "I believe in the resurrection of the body" because I have been resurrected from that body (the natural body) that the Bible speaks of.When I read this, this thought occurred to me. CC can't have the first covenant begin at Sinai or with the Israelites because then Gentiles would not have a natural body (as you've defined it as a covenant body) to resurrect out of. Since Gentiles were never under the Sinai law/covenant, the first covenant had to be found elsewhere; somewhere that would accommodate a resurrection opportunity to apply to everyone and not just the Jews. Or does CC still define the Genesis covenant as being a covenant between God and a specific (subset of all) people? Actually, Bev, I wasn't even thinking in terms of CC. It is nothing more than the corporate body resurrection view. I see that Jeff has answered... |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 6, 2011 12:35:10 GMT -5
Jeff wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Well perhaps we are saying the same thing here then. Because the vision is explained in the telling of this story as its meaning unfolds in the events seen and understanding is thus revealed to Peter. So perhaps that is not a good example for how we can know a fish is not a fish when the explanation is not given at all in the text.
Also because Moses was schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt - before his encounter with the living God, does not mean he then had to use that knowledge to tell this story of creation. It is more likely that because the people were familiar with the legends, that Moses is instead establishing the true story as God Himself revealed it to him.
So I still don't see that stories of those who had not been enlightened helps us much if we must go to them to find the meaning for these supposed symbols you think Moses was employing in the Genesis account. Because the bible establishes its own meaning for these types when it uses them metaphorically later.
Thus the story goes forward, because a fish is established as a fish in the beginning. After that it can be used in a figurative sense without destroying the original story at all. Which is the proper use of an allegory - as demonstrated by Paul.
Hug returned!
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 6, 2011 13:22:35 GMT -5
Hey, Ted. OK, so I'm thinking out loud here, and I'm sleepy. (In fact, I was ready to go to bed and thought I'd check the forums one last time.) So that's my excuse if my words are senseless. They reside together for a time. The body is dying and will soon perish. Our spirit, which has been given new life, continues. That does sound sleepy...I ask if we were raised in the same manner and you say that we resided together for a time. If I understand you correctly, this past raising does not continue; it peters out at some point in time. That is what you meant by saying "for a time", right? So then, according to that understanding and if I understood you correctly, you are saying that we need to be raised again??? Would this be another spiritual raising or a new physical resurrection? It seems to me that these are the only two options left available... ...checking on the forums just before hopping into bed, eh...hmmmm, you are addicted Yes, I am a little addicted. Though the addiction is not as bad as when I was a CARM regular. I must not have been clear, above. No surprise there. I'll try to say it again a different way. Our spiritual resurrection occurs while we are still in the physical body. Therefore, until the body dies (physical death), the "earthly tent" and the resurrected spirit (that which outlasts the earthly tent) reside together. So, the past raising does continue; no need for a second raising. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 6, 2011 14:14:33 GMT -5
Yes, I am a little addicted. Though the addiction is not as bad as when I was a CARM regular. I must not have been clear, above. No surprise there. I'll try to say it again a different way. Our spiritual resurrection occurs while we are still in the physical body. Therefore, until the body dies (physical death), the "earthly tent" and the resurrected spirit (that which outlasts the earthly tent) reside together. So, the past raising does continue; no need for a second raising. I guess I can go along with that, although what you believe to be the "body" and what I believe to be the "body" may be two different things... I also notice that since you believe there is no need for any other raising and that you believe our spirit goes directly to heaven anfter death, how would you explain how you get your immortal body that you hop to and fro with in heaven. I am being a little facetious here in that I believe we get our immortal body at salvation. I think most here believe that we somehow get a special material form (heavenly body?) when we die. I am assuming that you take the latter view...please correct me if I am wrong. What would your comments be on the other stuff I stated: " And whether we were or not, wouldn't that necessitate the first creation being associated with Adam and the second creation being associated with Christ (2 Cor 5:17)?
I have been harping for a long time now that these are the TWO bodies of 1 Corinthians 15 - the natural body (Adam - first Adam) and the spiritual body (Christ - second Adam). It is not dealing with individual human bodies that somehow get a new body from heaven at death. We ARE the new body in Jesus Christ. We ARE that glorified body! The body that we get from heaven is that which descends at the new birth. It is the New Jerusalem "which cometh down out of heaven from my God" Rev 3:12). It is the same Jerusalem "which is above" from Galatians 4:26..." |
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jan 6, 2011 14:48:09 GMT -5
I think it would be helpful to all interested and especially to Jeff for us to state where we are today in our views. I know a lot more now than I did 15 months ago. More than 700 hours of live broadcasts has made me realize just how much farther we all have to go... 4 Point Covenant Creationist Reformed in name only Preterist regarding Israel's eschatology Optimistic regarding the state of The Kingdom and it's growth Covenantal Bi-Millennialist... <-- That should raise a few eyebrows. And I think the 3.5 years in the book of Revelation is probably speaking more about the 3.5 years of Jesus earthly ministry vs. the destruction of Jerusalem. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 6, 2011 15:40:18 GMT -5
Yes, I am a little addicted. Though the addiction is not as bad as when I was a CARM regular. I must not have been clear, above. No surprise there. I'll try to say it again a different way. Our spiritual resurrection occurs while we are still in the physical body. Therefore, until the body dies (physical death), the "earthly tent" and the resurrected spirit (that which outlasts the earthly tent) reside together. So, the past raising does continue; no need for a second raising. I guess I can go along with that, although what you believe to be the "body" and what I believe to be the "body" may be two different things... True I also notice that since you believe there is no need for any other raising and that you believe our spirit goes directly to heaven anfter death, how would you explain how you get your immortal body that you hop to and fro with in heaven. I am being a little facetious here in that I believe we get our immortal body at salvation. I think most here believe that we somehow get a special material form (heavenly body?) when we die. I am assuming that you take the latter view...please correct me if I am wrong. If we get a new "body" of any kind in heaven, I don't know what it is. I don't have an opinion about that either way. What would your comments be on the other stuff I statred: " And whether we were or not, wouldn't that necessitate the first creation being associated with Adam and the second creation being associated with Christ (2 Cor 5:17)?Yes. I have been harping for a long time now that these are the TWO bodies of 1 Corinthians 15 - the natural body (Adam - first Adam) and the spiritual body (Christ - second Adam). It is not dealing with individual human bodies that somehow get a new body from heaven at death. We ARE the new body in Jesus Christ. We ARE that glorified body! The body that we get from heaven is that which descends at the new birth. It is the New Jerusalem "which cometh down out of heaven from my God" Rev 3:12). It is the same Jerusalem "which is above" from Galatians 4:26... [/color]"[/quote] I don't believe a New Jerusalem literally comes down out of heaven. I believe the terms "comes down (from heaven/from God)" or "from above" and their variations refer to anything that is godly or given by God. It does not mean they literally popped down from heaven. Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, what do you make of verse 38? 1 Corinthians 15:38 NASB (38) But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. This sounds individual to me, not corporate. Many bodies, not one. I read through 1 Corinthians 15, but I still come to an individual view of it. However, I did note the similarity of its concluding comments with those of Romans 7: Romans 7:23-25 NASB (23) but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (24) Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. 1 Corinthians 15:50,55-58 NASB (50) Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (55) " O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" (56) The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; (57) but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (58) Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 6, 2011 15:53:01 GMT -5
Hmm... If the body that is resurrected is a single body, the body of Christ with us as it's constituent parts, what does it mean in 1 Corinthians 15:12 when it says "resurrection of the dead ones"? This is plural. There will be a resurrection of many.
But even further, in 15:15, it tells us us that there will be raisings (both plural and present tense, as well as poor English) of dead ones (plural again). Verse 16 repeats it again and says "If dead people are not being raised right now, then neither has Christ been raised up in the past."
It continues to state that if Christ has not already risen then you are still in your sins, "and as a result, those being put to sleep in Christ are completely destroyed. For if we only have hope in Christ while in this life [as opposed to another life], we are the most pitiful of men".
If the body is indeed only one, verse 37 says it had not yet come, and that you do not sow the body that will come later.
Then in verse 48 we really see the picture of individual bodies. Just prior to this it shows a singular man (Adam) being earthly and a singular man being heavenly (Christ). But now it shows many being earthly and many being heavenly. It goes beyond the resurrection of a single body to show many bodies that will be sown earthly and raised heavenly.
While there are 'raisings' of those dead in Christ, He at the same time is destroying death. Back in verse 26 Paul states this, that 'death is the last enemy being destroyed'. Every time someone in Him passes away, Christ destroys death. Thus, when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality, Death is devoid of its sting and its victory, for Christ destroys it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 6, 2011 16:46:22 GMT -5
I have been harping for a long time now that these are the TWO bodies of 1 Corinthians 15 - the natural body (Adam - first Adam) and the spiritual body (Christ - second Adam). It is not dealing with individual human bodies that somehow get a new body from heaven at death. We ARE the new body in Jesus Christ. We ARE that glorified body! The body that we get from heaven is that which descends at the new birth. It is the New Jerusalem "which cometh down out of heaven from my God" Rev 3:12). It is the same Jerusalem "which is above" from Galatians 4:26... [/color]"[/quote] I don't believe a New Jerusalem literally comes down out of heaven. I believe the terms "comes down (from heaven/from God)" or "from above" and their variations refer to anything that is godly or given by God. It does not mean they literally popped down from heaven. Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, what do you make of verse 38?[/quote] Not too much of a clue there... 1 Corinthians 15:38 NASB (38) But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. This sounds individual to me, not corporate. Many bodies, not one. I read through 1 Corinthians 15, but I still come to an individual view of it. However, I did note the similarity of its concluding comments with those of Romans 7: Romans 7:23-25 NASB (23) but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (24) Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. 1 Corinthians 15:50,55-58 NASB (50) Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (55) " O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" (56) The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; (57) but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (58) Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord. Do we have the victory in Christ right now, or do we get it later after death? And if we have the victroy right now, then we have fulfilled verses 55-56. The immortal body is at salvation not at death. Don't really know which you believe on that... |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 6, 2011 16:54:26 GMT -5
Hmm... If the body that is resurrected is a single body, the body of Christ with us as it's constituent parts, what does it mean in 1 Corinthians 15:12 when it says " resurrection of the dead ones"? This is plural. There will be a resurrection of many. But even further, in 15:15, it tells us us that there will be raisings (both plural and present tense, as well as poor English) of dead ones (plural again). Verse 16 repeats it again and says "If dead people are not being raised right now, then neither has Christ been raised up in the past." It continues to state that if Christ has not already risen then you are still in your sins, "and as a result, those being put to sleep in Christ are completely destroyed. For if we only have hope in Christ while in this life [as opposed to another life], we are the most pitiful of men". If the body is indeed only one, verse 37 says it had not yet come, and that you do not sow the body that will come later. Then in verse 48 we really see the picture of individual bodies. Just prior to this it shows a singular man (Adam) being earthly and a singular man being heavenly (Christ). But now it shows many being earthly and many being heavenly. It goes beyond the resurrection of a single body to show many bodies that will be sown earthly and raised heavenly. While there are 'raisings' of those dead in Christ, He at the same time is destroying death. Back in verse 26 Paul states this, that 'death is the last enemy being destroyed'. Every time someone in Him passes away, Christ destroys death. Thus, when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality, Death is devoid of its sting and its victory, for Christ destroys it. It is my understanding that there are two resurrections referred to in 1 Corinthians 15: 1. The resurrection of the dead ones (sheolites) 2. The resurrection of those living (yet spiritually dead) who would come (and were coming) to the knowledge of Christ. I commend you for seeing the present passive verbs in the following verses: Verse 16 - "If dead people are not being raised right now, then neither has Christ been raised up in the past." Verse 26 - "death is the last enemy being destroyed" |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 6, 2011 17:20:08 GMT -5
It is my understanding that there are two resurrections referred to in 1 Corinthians 15: 1. The resurrection of the dead ones (sheolites) 2. The resurrection of those living (yet spiritually dead) who would come (and were coming) to the knowledge of Christ. The first is clearly spelled out for us but where is the indications for the second? [Note here that I do believe in a spiritual resurrection when we come to Christ as is indicated in other passages, but it doesn't appear to be the subject in this one.] Yes, and we must also recognize the future passive as well. Paul addresses his readers, and even includes himself, that they will experience this resurrection and change in a time to come. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 17:20:42 GMT -5
Bev, Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, what do you make of verse 38? 1 Corinthians 15:38 NASB (38) But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. This sounds individual to me, not corporate. Many bodies, not one. Peter thought Paul was hard to read, and Peter grew up in the same culture. In the chapters leading up to 1 Cor. 15, body - soma, refers to the church, the covenant, corporate body. Paul did not give any clue that he changed his use of body - soma in this chapter. The context then says corporate body. Your specific example, the context (vs. 37) is not, for example, one seed of wheat vs. another seed of wheat, but a seed of wheat vs. some other type of seed. In Paul's mind, there is a "wheat body," a separate "mustard body," a separate "barley body," etc. Likewise vs. 39 suggests different body types, not different actual bodies. ;D It is difficult for us to think in terms of a corporate body, and so we tend to miss the meaning. We have to deliberately keep this corporate context in mind as we read. We have to purposefully and conscientiously step out of our own individualistic culture, to read Paul or anything else in Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 7, 2011 13:06:05 GMT -5
It is difficult for us to think in terms of a corporate body, and so we tend to miss the meaning. We have to deliberately keep this corporate context in mind as we read. We have to purposefully and conscientiously step out of our own individualistic culture, to read Paul or anything else in Scripture. I certainly agree that we constitute a corporate body in Christ Jesus. Even salvation can be viewed as corporate in that it is applied to all who believe, equally and without partiality. We are the called out ones into a corporate assembly. However, I see no reason why that negates our individual lives or bodies. The illustration of the singular body of believers doesn't eliminate the believers having singular bodies of their own. Paul uses "soma" to refer to his own physical body in 1 Corinthians 13:3. Paul says that the body of Christ, being the believers in Him, was present at the time of his writing (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:12 which shows the body as "is"; present tense). If the 'body' refers to the covenant here in chapter 15, I find it odd that Paul now says that it is also yet to come in the future. The context of this whole passage, as I see it, comes surrounding verse 12 where the resurrection is tied to Christ's rising from the dead. It doesn't say the word's "Christ's body" or "Christos soma", but it is the Lord bodily which is being discussed as seen in Paul's inclusion of the creed in verses 4-7. Christ's body was seen by living people that his readers could go and personally question regarding this. Again, if we are speaking of a convenantial body, we should see that the new body came up from the old. Instead, the risen body came up from "out of dead ones" (plural), or 'out from among those who are dead'. The conclusion Paul arrives at is that if the body of Christ has not risen from out among those who are dead, those dead are utterly destroyed (verses 16-18). If those who are dead refer to the old covenant(s), Paul says that the old is destroyed only if Christ has not risen! From a covenantial perspective we might be able to say that the new risen body, the body of Christ as being His believers, has been risen at each member's conversion, and to this I can generally agree based on other passages. But this is not the message here that I can see. Look at how Paul comes to his conclusions. In two places (verses 13 & 16) he says that if the dead do not rise or cannot be raised, then Christ did not rise or could not be raised! That seems backwards in a covenantial view of the passage. It would be like saying that if the spiritually dead could not and are not coming to life, Christ could not come to spiritual life Himself. This is getting long so I'll stop here for the moment. |
|
