PDA

View Full Version : Does God have a physical body?



Equipped_4_Love
Sep 30th 2010, 04:49 AM
What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? If so, is it flesh and bone as the Mormons believe?

Sirus
Sep 30th 2010, 05:04 AM
What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? If so, is it flesh and bone as the Mormons believe?Mormons? You mean to ask of the Father, dont you?

The Son?
Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus is God.

Bladers
Sep 30th 2010, 05:10 AM
For the Father:

John 5:37
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."

God is spirit, but he also has a physical shape/form.
"physical" not human ofcourse.

nzyr
Sep 30th 2010, 10:39 AM
What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? I don't know. But Jesus said that God is a Spirit.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(John 4:24)

Firstfruits
Sep 30th 2010, 11:21 AM
What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? If so, is it flesh and bone as the Mormons believe?

In agreement with Nzyr, God is a spirit.

Jn 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth.

Firstfruits

chad
Sep 30th 2010, 11:46 AM
Jesus had a physical body. 1 Cor 15 42:-44 speaks of the ressurection of the dead. They will be raised with a spiritual body. So if we are created in the image of God, then yes, in my opinion I would say God also has a spiritual body.

Philemon 3:21 The NIV translates this verse as follows:
(Phil 3:21 NIV) who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Firstfruits
Sep 30th 2010, 11:52 AM
If God had a physical body and Jesus was with God from the begining then Jesus would not need to put on flesh in order to live with us.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Firstfruits

BrianW
Sep 30th 2010, 12:18 PM
Take a moment to think of the vast universe that we live in. God breathed it.

The solar system that we live in and all of the others that we know of and all of the others that we don't know of.

The earth itself and its ecosystem and all of the myriad creatures that live upon it.

The complexities of the human body and mind that even with all of the research that has been done still isn't completely understood.

God did that. God is awesome. God is omnipotent. God is the very creator of the space time continuum.

I don't think that the entire wisdom of mankind combined could even grasp the concept of all that he is capable of.

What couldn't he do or have if he wished it?

Br. Barnabas
Sep 30th 2010, 02:12 PM
The Father does not have a physical body.

The Son does have a physical body.

The Spirit does not have a physical body.

Firstfruits
Sep 30th 2010, 02:38 PM
The Father does not have a physical body.

The Son does have a physical body.

The Spirit does not have a physical body.

Knowing that until Jesus came to dwell with us he was with God and therefore as God is, he was spiritual, and now that he has returned to the Father has he then returned to how he was before he came?

Firstfruits

Br. Barnabas
Sep 30th 2010, 03:03 PM
Knowing that until Jesus came to dwell with us he was with God and therefore as God is, he was spiritual, and now that he has returned to the Father has he then returned to how he was before he came?

Firstfruits

The Word before becoming incarnate of the Virgin Mary was spirit. Since the incarnation however, he has remained flesh and blood. The resurreciton was a bodily one and he ate, drank, and had physical interactions with the disciples after he was raised. He ascended into heaven in a body and St Stephen when he was being martyred saw the Lord standing at the right hand of the Father. The Lord Jesus Christ still has a body. The Lord is the frist born of the Resurrection we will all have a body like his in the end. Bodily resurrection is one of the main points of the faith, as declared in the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed and refered to throughout the New Testament.

Firstfruits
Sep 30th 2010, 03:11 PM
The Word before becoming incarnate of the Virgin Mary was spirit. Since the incarnation however, he has remained flesh and blood. The resurreciton was a bodily one and he ate, drank, and had physical interactions with the disciples after he was raised. He ascended into heaven in a body and St Stephen when he was being martyred saw the Lord standing at the right hand of the Father. The Lord Jesus Christ still has a body. The Lord is the frist born of the Resurrection we will all have a body like his in the end. Bodily resurrection is one of the main points of the faith, as declared in the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed and refered to throughout the New Testament.

When he arose from the dead and ate with the disciples that was before he had returned to heaven, if Jesus returned to heaven with a physical body does that mean that heaven requires us to be physical? So does God not also require a physical body since Jesus and God share the same throne?

Firstfruits

Br. Barnabas
Sep 30th 2010, 03:45 PM
When he arose from the dead and ate with the disciples that was before he had returned to heaven, if Jesus returned to heaven with a physical body does that mean that heaven requires us to be physical? So does God not also require a physical body since Jesus and God share the same throne?

Firstfruits

It does not require us to be physical or the Father to be physical or the Holy Spirit to be physical. Since Stephen sees the Lord standing at the right hand of the Glory of God, it follows/shows that Jesus is still in a physical body. In Revelation 1 we see John speaking to the Lord and he places his hand on John's shoulder, and that he has hair, eyes, feet, hands, and all physical aspects. From what we see from Acts is that Jesus is at the right hand of God. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spririt are three persons they do not all require bodies.

Jesus is the frist born of the Resurreciton, heaven is not the final destination, the new earth as spoken of in Revelation is the final destination, where all Christians will have a new resurrected body. Heaven can hold physical bodies, as Holy Writ and the Chruch teaches that Enoch and Elijah both were taken to heaven without dying. Jude speaks of the archangel Michael disputing the devil for the body of Moses, it is assumed that Michael was taking the body to heaven. In heaven we, Christians may or maynot have a body, Revelation shows the matryrs had a body of some sort since he sees a great number of them in robes. But we do know that we will have physical bodies at the Resurrection like Jesus and they will be like Jesus's body is now. It shows the great humbility and scarifice of the Lord to continue to have the body and even more so a body with scars from his Passion. The Church thoughout her history has taught and believed as the Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus has a physical body since his incarnation and Resurrection.

notuptome
Sep 30th 2010, 05:22 PM
The new resurrected body that Jesus exhibited was not like the physical body He received at His incarnation. John 20:26 Jesus stood in the midst of the disciples the door being shut. Luke 24:37-43 Jesus states He is not a ghost but He has substance and then He ate fish and honeycomb. The resurrected body of Christ is clearly different from our bodies of flesh and blood.

God the Father has form or shape but not a body like ours. Moses asked to see God in Exo 33:18-23. It is very interesting that when God made man God gave man the form and likeness that God chose.

God being omnipresent would seem to make having a body too constraining. But I am constrained by the limits of my tabernacle of flesh.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Sirus
Sep 30th 2010, 11:30 PM
If God had a physical body and Jesus was with God from the begining then Jesus would not need to put on flesh in order to live with us.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

FirstfruitsThat's simply not true. He had to come like us. He could not come incorruptible and spiritual. He had to be a man. Many passages speak of this. That's all that passage says. It does not suggest that He did not have a body prior to becoming a natural, corruptible, mortal, man. It says nothing of the sort.

Sirus
Sep 30th 2010, 11:33 PM
Knowing that until Jesus came to dwell with us he was with God and therefore as God is, he was spiritual, and now that he has returned to the Father has he then returned to how he was before he came?

FirstfruitsWell, He's spiritual now too. So? How does your statment prove in any way He did not have a spiritual body before He became natural? Is there any verse of scripture that suggests this?

losthorizon
Oct 1st 2010, 12:57 AM
Well, He's spiritual now too. So? How does your statment prove in any way He did not have a spiritual body before He became natural? Is there any verse of scripture that suggests this?
What is a "spiritual body"? Does a spiritual body consist of flesh and blood?

Sirus
Oct 1st 2010, 01:07 AM
As shown earlier
Jesus said flesh and bone
Luk 24:39

Frecs
Oct 1st 2010, 01:22 AM
What is a "spiritual body"? Does a spiritual body consist of flesh and blood?

After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples, ate with them and they were able to touch him to prove that he was 'real' (not a ghost). And, yet, he entered a room without use of a door or window.

Was this the case with his pre-incarnation form? It would, I suppose, explain the Christophanies... but, why when Moses asked to see God, he was told he could only see his backside?

percho
Oct 1st 2010, 03:27 AM
If God had a physical body and Jesus was with God from the begining then Jesus would not need to put on flesh in order to live with us.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Firstfruits

He didn't put on flesh to live among us. He was made flesh for the purpose of death. For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, (How?)For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Servant89
Oct 1st 2010, 08:46 AM
The Father does not have a physical body.

The Son does have a physical body.

The Spirit does not have a physical body.

since the fullness of God (100% of the Father and 100 % of the Spirit) dwell inside the person of the son (see it below)

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That means the body of flesh that Jesus has now, is also housing the Father and the Spirit. For it is written:

Jn 3:34 ... for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. (meaning Jesus does not have 80% of the Spirit, he has 100%)

John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Shalom

Firstfruits
Oct 1st 2010, 09:22 AM
It does not require us to be physical or the Father to be physical or the Holy Spirit to be physical. Since Stephen sees the Lord standing at the right hand of the Glory of God, it follows/shows that Jesus is still in a physical body. In Revelation 1 we see John speaking to the Lord and he places his hand on John's shoulder, and that he has hair, eyes, feet, hands, and all physical aspects. From what we see from Acts is that Jesus is at the right hand of God. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spririt are three persons they do not all require bodies.

Jesus is the frist born of the Resurreciton, heaven is not the final destination, the new earth as spoken of in Revelation is the final destination, where all Christians will have a new resurrected body. Heaven can hold physical bodies, as Holy Writ and the Chruch teaches that Enoch and Elijah both were taken to heaven without dying. Jude speaks of the archangel Michael disputing the devil for the body of Moses, it is assumed that Michael was taking the body to heaven. In heaven we, Christians may or maynot have a body, Revelation shows the matryrs had a body of some sort since he sees a great number of them in robes. But we do know that we will have physical bodies at the Resurrection like Jesus and they will be like Jesus's body is now. It shows the great humbility and scarifice of the Lord to continue to have the body and even more so a body with scars from his Passion. The Church thoughout her history has taught and believed as the Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus has a physical body since his incarnation and Resurrection.

If we see spirits/ghosts are we seeing their physical bodies?

Will we not see God, who we know is a spirit?

Mt 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Rev 19:4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.

Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

God is a spirit, how shall he dwell with us. Jesus will be on the throne with God, is the throne physical or spiritual?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Oct 1st 2010, 09:26 AM
That's simply not true. He had to come like us. He could not come incorruptible and spiritual. He had to be a man. Many passages speak of this. That's all that passage says. It does not suggest that He did not have a body prior to becoming a natural, corruptible, mortal, man. It says nothing of the sort.

Jesus has returned to heaven, he was not physical before he came. he could not do what was required in a spirtual body.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Oct 1st 2010, 09:28 AM
He didn't put on flesh to live among us. He was made flesh for the purpose of death. For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, (How?)For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Yes, Jesus put on flesh to do what God sent him to do. to die for our sins and complete the plan of salvation.

Firstfruits

Frecs
Oct 1st 2010, 09:47 AM
since the fullness of God (100% of the Father and 100 % of the Spirit) dwell inside the person of the son (see it below)

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That means the body of flesh that Jesus has now, is also housing the Father and the Spirit. For it is written:

Jn 3:34 ... for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. (meaning Jesus does not have 80% of the Spirit, he has 100%)

John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Shalom

Col 2:9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (KJV)

This verse is one of the "proof texts" for the Oneness position. Oneness Pentecostals believe this verse teaches that Jesus was God the Father.

But, is that verse actually teaching that Jesus was God the Father and God the Holy Spirit -- was it teaching Oneness?

In John 15 Jesus says that we are to abide in him and he will abide in us. Does that mean that we are physically in Him? Of course not! We understand the metaphor Jesus is using. We understand that he is talking about a spiritual connection/communion.

We see the same idea of spiritual union when Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17:20-24--

John 17:20-24
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
(KJV)

Firstfruits
Oct 1st 2010, 10:12 AM
1 Corinthians 15:40-50
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Firstfruits

Ta-An
Oct 1st 2010, 11:07 AM
What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? If so, is it flesh and bone as the Mormons believe?

I'll just quote scripture :) 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

nzyr
Oct 1st 2010, 11:48 AM
What is a "spiritual body"? Does a spiritual body consist of flesh and blood?
I don't believe so. I believe it will be different. I believe we will be able to touch and be touched etc. But our bodies will be made out of a different substance. In other words we won't be ghosts. We shall be like Jesus when he was raised from the dead.

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:44)

Jesus was raised from the dead with a new body. His body was changed to a spiritual body. He was the firstborn of the dead with a new body.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (1 John 3:2-3)

Firstfruits
Oct 1st 2010, 02:03 PM
What is a "spiritual body"? Does a spiritual body consist of flesh and blood?

Jesus returned to heaven, if he was flesh and blood he could not inherit heaven.

Lk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Firstfruits

HisLeast
Oct 1st 2010, 02:25 PM
Could someone reconcile all the previous posts with...

Exodus 33: 17-23
17 The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” 18 Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” 21 Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; 22 and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

Frecs
Oct 1st 2010, 02:40 PM
Could someone reconcile all the previous posts with...

Exodus 33: 17-23
17 The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” 18 Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” 21 Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; 22 and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

Maybe someone will answer you...they've ignored me on this point.....

Firstfruits
Oct 1st 2010, 03:09 PM
Could someone reconcile all the previous posts with...

Exodus 33: 17-23
17 The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” 18 Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” 21 Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; 22 and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

God can reveal himself to whoever he chooses to and however he chooses to.

Firstfruits

HisLeast
Oct 1st 2010, 03:13 PM
God can reveal himself to whoever he chooses to and however he chooses to.

Yes. We all know that.

The question was how does one reconcile Exodus 33:17-23 with all the verses presented.

Frecs
Oct 1st 2010, 03:20 PM
Could someone reconcile all the previous posts with...

Exodus 33: 17-23
17 The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” 18 Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” 21 Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; 22 and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

God here is saying that no man can see Him and live. But, Abraham served Him lunch, twice, as God presented in a "Theophany" or "Christophany" whichever term you wish to use. Why the difference? Was Abraham serving lunch to the Son while Moses was seeing the backside of The Father??? The Father clearly had form, but not necessarily the same form we mean when we say "body"... and of course there is the Holy Spirit who appeared as a Pillar of smoke/fire, as a dove, and as tongues of fire and wind. What gives?

LookingUp
Oct 1st 2010, 04:04 PM
Knowing that until Jesus came to dwell with us he was with God and therefore as God is, he was spiritual, and now that he has returned to the Father has he then returned to how he was before he came?

FirstfruitsI don't think so. See 1 Tim. 2:5.

LookingUp
Oct 1st 2010, 04:23 PM
Could someone reconcile all the previous posts with...

Exodus 33: 17-23
17 The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” 18 Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” 19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” 21 Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; 22 and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”Are you saying that the Lord’s reference to His “back” and “face” proves He has a body?

HisLeast
Oct 1st 2010, 04:24 PM
Are you saying that the Lord’s reference to His “back” and “face” proves He has a body?

I'm not saying anything. I'm seeing if anyone can reconcile it. :)

LookingUp
Oct 1st 2010, 05:04 PM
I'm not saying anything. I'm seeing if anyone can reconcile it. :)I'm just trying to clarify. You mean reconcile it with the Scripture that says God is Spirit (John 4:24)? Were there others that needed reconciling? I’m not sure invisibility (1 Tim. 1:17; Col. 1:15) proves God has no body, but if God is Spirit (incorporeal), wouldn’t that prove He does not have a body? Aren’t those terms opposites? Maybe I don’t understand the definitions?

I can’t say from Scripture that God, the Father, has a body, but He has a voice and a shape that has never been seen by man (other than the Word, who became flesh):

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37

And it seems angels can and do see the Father’s face:

Matthew 18:9 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

As far as a possible “body” goes, the most I can find are:

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.

Ezekiel 1:27 And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward....

Amos 9:1 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake.

But since these are only visions, I don’t know that we can take them as proof that God has a physical body or even a physical shape of some kind. If God does not have a physical shape, what kind of shape is Jesus talking about in John 5:37?

nzyr
Oct 1st 2010, 09:43 PM
Here's a couple more scriptures for thought:

Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:12-16)

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Matthew 5:8)

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 12:11 AM
since the fullness of God (100% of the Father and 100 % of the Spirit) dwell inside the person of the son (see it below)

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That means the body of flesh that Jesus has now, is also housing the Father and the Spirit. For it is written:

Jn 3:34 ... for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. (meaning Jesus does not have 80% of the Spirit, he has 100%)

John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Shalom:thumbsup:
.........................

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 12:16 AM
he was not physical before he came.how do you know? You keep saying this without any scriptural proof. Why do you do that?


he could not do what was required in a spirtual body.I said that already. I said that is why He became like us.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 12:19 AM
Jesus returned to heaven, if he was flesh and blood he could not inherit heaven.

Lk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

FirstfruitsThat's why it says He is flesh and bone. The body He had after the resurrection was a changed body, not an entirely different body. So it is with us, as it is written. We'll have no need for blood. Flesh and bone will be incorruptible flesh and bone. Changed, not completely different.

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 12:20 AM
Here's a couple more scriptures for thought:

Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:12-16)

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Matthew 5:8)Good point. “No man hath seen nor can see” (1 Tim. 6:16) but the pure in heart will see God. John 1:18 also says that “no one has seen God at any time,” John 6:46 says that “not that anyone has seen the Father,” and 1 John 4:12 says that “no one has seen God at any time.”

It seems very clear that according to Jesus and John, no one has seen God, the Father. And no man can see God and live (Ex. 33:20). Yet, it is written that God, the Father has been seen (Gen. 12:7; Gen. 17:1; Gen. 18:1; Gen. 26:2; Gen. 26:24; Gen. 32:30; Gen. 35:9; Gen. 48:3; Ex. 3:16; Ex. 4:5; Ex. 6:3; Ex. 24:9-11; Ex. 33:11; Ex. 33:23; Num. 14:14; Deut. 5:4; Deut. 34:10; Judges 13:22; 1 Kings 22:19).

My opinion, at this time, is that all of those “sightings” are manifestations of the invisible God. And when God gave a prophet a vision, it was a vision and would not qualify as actually seeing God or the shape/form of God.

God is spirit (John 4:24) and He is invisible (1 Tim. 1:17). This should make it obvious that the human eye is unable to see God. And apparently, if God revealed all of His real self to the human eye, man would not be able to survive it. I’m not sure what that’s all about, but I think it has something to do with His glory, because Moses had to veil His face after being “face to face” with God (Ex. 34:35). In the OT, it seems they never even heard the real voice of God (John 5:37), so this voice they heard in the wilderness was apparently a manifestation of God’s real voice.

It seems to me that as man, the fullest revelation we will ever get of God is Christ Jesus, for when one sees Jesus, one see God (John 12:45) and when we know Jesus, we know the Father (John 14:7-9), and Christ is the perfect (visible) image of the invisible God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).

In the days of Jesus, God walked around with men. Jesus told them that when they saw Him, they saw the Father (John 12:45). But it’s interesting to me that Jesus also said that the pure in heart will see God. As Jesus pointed out to Philip, weren’t the "pure in heart" already looking at the Father as Jesus spoke? Apparently, the pure in heart will see God—God in all His glory and not as a manifestation. Not as the man Jesus or the resurrected Jesus. I think we will see God in His full glory for the first time after we are glorified.

REVELATION 22:1,3-4 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb . . . And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; . .

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 12:42 PM
Okay, I decided to go ask a A/G Pastor that I hold in highest regard for, amongst other things, his high degree of theological knowledge and insight, for help answering some of my questions on this subject. I will share here for those who may find his answers enlightening:

I asked him: Let’s see if I can explain what I’m trying to figure out…. Here is what I (think) I know:
1. Adam walked and talked with God in the garden
2. Abraham served God lunch on at least two occasions
3. Moses was only able to see the backside of God
4. God appeared as a pillar of smoke/fire to the Israelites and as tongues of fire on the day of Pentacost
5. God appeared as a dove when Jesus was baptized
Here is what I might sorta know:
1. Numbers 1 & 2 were Theophanies/Christophanies

Pastor Scott's reply: A theophany is a visible appearance of a deity. I would suggest that while both #1 and #2 are theophanies, I would not go so far as to make them necessarily into Christophanies. I don't think the weight of the textual evidence would bear the attempt.
2. Numbers 4 & 5 were the Holy Spirit

His reply: #5 is the appearance of the Holy Spirit; the text supports this. But as for #4, I am hesitant to label the pillar and the cloud as being the Holy Spirit. It is not presented that way in the OT, and given the very strict monotheism of ancient Judaism, I doubt seriously any would have considered any manifestation of the divine to be other than the Most High; see Deuteronomy 6:4 in this regard.
3. Number 3 was God the Father????

His reply: Keep in mind that in ancient Judaism, the concept of God as Father was very much undeveloped. Moses was told he could not witness the actual glory of the Most High, and Judaism interprets that glory as the Shekinah, the absolute majesty of the divine, virtually incomprehensible by man. Whatever Person within the Triune Godhead we try to make this appearance to be is of course based on further revelation as to the nature and the Person of God.
Am I doing okay so far?

His reply: Yes.
Okay, if so far so good, then
1. Was the nature of The Son’s body pre-incarnation the same as the nature of his body post-resurrection?

His reply: Preincarnation He did not have a body. John 4:24. Notice also John 1 -- "he became flesh and dwelt among us..." .
2. What is the nature of The Father’s body? Ie., is it anthropomorphic or some kind of energy mass?

His reply: Back to John 4:24. The Father has no physical form; spirit and flesh are completely diverse. .
3. Is it correct to say that the Holy Spirit has no physical form per se but can take on form (fire, dove)

His reply: The Holy Spirit, as a manifestation of the Triune God, has no physical form but can manifest ways comprehensible to mortal man. .

[and, as he often does--he suggests books to read:],
I know you are an avid reader and so I would suggest three resources that may be of interest to you. The first is Bickersteth's "The Trinity" -- 9.99 from Christian Book Distributors. It is an older work, the language reflecting the time, but the best way to read this book is with Bible in hand. The second is Grudem's "Systematic Theology"; he gives one of the best treatments of the Trinity from a systematician that I have found. The third is a toss-up between Erickson's "God in Three Persons" and Morey's "The Trinity" (which may be out of print; you might find it on Amazon.com). If I come across any academic articles on the subject, I will forward them to your attention.

peace

Pastor Scott.....

Firstfruits
Oct 2nd 2010, 12:52 PM
how do you know? You keep saying this without any scriptural proof. Why do you do that?

I said that already. I said that is why He became like us.

I believe that Jesus was as God is before he came to earth to do what God sent him to do.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

They were the same.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Oct 2nd 2010, 12:58 PM
I don't think so. See 1 Tim. 2:5.

Are you saying that because it says "the man" Christ Jesus, it means he has a physical body? How would you expaln how God will dwell with men in the following scripture?

Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

God bless!

Firstfruits

Servant89
Oct 2nd 2010, 02:10 PM
Are you saying that because it says "the man" Christ Jesus, it means he has a physical body? How would you expaln how God will dwell with men in the following scripture?

Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

God bless!

Firstfruits

God has a physical body, Jesus is the head of that physical body. The Church is the body of that physical body. Before Pentecost, Jesus was looking for a church, a body to place his head on ...

Mt 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Shalom

Firstfruits
Oct 2nd 2010, 02:42 PM
God has a physical body, Jesus is the head of that physical body. The Church is the body of that physical body. Before Pentecost, Jesus was looking for a church, a body to place his head on ...

Mt 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Shalom

The following scripture does not agree.

Jn 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth.

Not forgeting the following.

1 Corinthians 15:40-50
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Firstfruits

divaD
Oct 2nd 2010, 03:20 PM
Jesus returned to heaven, if he was flesh and blood he could not inherit heaven.

Lk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Firstfruits



1 Cor 15:50 states that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, it doesn't say flesh and bone can't. And besides, since the Bible teaches we will dwell upon the earth forever, this puts the kingdom of God on the earth, not in heaven, even tho the kingdom of God is obviously also in heaven.


Read Ezekiel chapter 37 again. Notice that there's bones, and there's flesh, but no mention of any blood. IOW these equal a flesh and bone body, just like we saw Jesus having. Perhaps we will even still eat food in that new body. Jesus did,

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 03:31 PM
1. Was the nature of The Son’s body pre-incarnation the same as the nature of his body post-resurrection?
His reply: Preincarnation He did not have a body. John 4:24. Notice also John 1 -- "he became flesh and dwelt among us..." . Does this say the Son was given a body for the first time?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
................
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
No it does not. Word here is the Message, Plan, or Way of Salvation manifested in the man Christ Jesus through the eternal Son/Word -life, eternal life. Read John and 1John in context and you 'should' see this is not saying the Son did not have a body and obtained one for the first time. It is simply saying the hidden mystery of God/mystery of Christ was, at that time, manifested in flesh.

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; )
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Where, in these two passages does it say the Son did not have a body before He became a man? John 4:24? No, that doesn't say it either.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Does that say the Son is just a Spirit? No it does not. It tells us God (F,S,HS) is something, but it doesn't tell us everything God is. This cannot mean the Son is just Spirit because we know He has a body. Yet, we also know The Spirit, completely, is in the body of Christ. This verse doesn't even address all the Son was before He became a man. No scripture does. It cannot be determined by any text that Jesus did not have a body pre-incarnation.

notuptome
Oct 2nd 2010, 03:35 PM
1 Cor 15:50 states that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, it doesn't say flesh and bone can't. And besides, since the Bible teaches we will dwell upon the earth forever, this puts the kingdom of God on the earth, not in heaven, even tho the kingdom of God is obviously also in heaven.


Read Ezekiel chapter 37 again. Notice that there's bones, and there's flesh, but no mention of any blood. IOW these equal a flesh and bone body, just like we saw Jesus having. Perhaps we will even still eat food in that new body. Jesus did,
What then do you do with Lev 17:11 where it states that the life of the flesh is in the blood?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 03:40 PM
Are you saying that because it says "the man" Christ Jesus, it means he has a physical body? How would you expaln how God will dwell with men in the following scripture?

Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

God bless!

FirstfruitsOf course He has a physical body. Where does scripture say He lost it? There's no problem with these two verses. I don't understand the point you are trying to make with them.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 03:41 PM
What then do you do with Lev 17:11 where it states that the life of the flesh is in the blood?

For the cause of Christ
RogerCorruptible is changed to incorruptible -no need for blood.

divaD
Oct 2nd 2010, 04:07 PM
What then do you do with Lev 17:11 where it states that the life of the flesh is in the blood?

For the cause of Christ
Roger



I'm just throwing this out there, based on the passage you just brought up. So keep in mind, I haven't thought this through yet..just a wild guess. If the life of the flesh is in the blood, this to me would mean as long as there is still blood flowing thru the veins, one could still be alive. But what happens to the flesh when it dies? blood no longer flows thru the veins, and the body decays. What I'm getting at, as long as the blood is still flowing thru the veins, this makes a person still a mortal being, because eventually this person is going to die. From what I can figure out, blood will no longer be needed nor required to sustain life in the flesh. To me, it looks like we will still have flesh, and we still still have bones..we just won't have blood flowing thru veins, and yet we still live, and live forever at that.


What I get out of the passage in a spiritual sense, and from putting 2 and 2 together from other passages, if one gives up there blood for instance, they die. It said blood was for the atonement of your souls. IOW, you die, in order to live. And this is exactly what Jesus did. He died, He spilled His blood, apparently all of it, in order that we could live.

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 05:36 PM
I asked Pastor Scott the following follow-up question: when the creation account states that God created us in His image, but God did not have a body (at least until The Son took on flesh to dwell amongst us) in what way are we “in His image”?


Pastor Scott's reply: The "Imago Dei", as the Latin fathers termed it, is not about bodily form but about representation of the personality and character of God. There are attributes of existence given to humans that are not given to any other aspect of the created order, the most significant one being responsibility in choice. We speak often about "the will of God" and we affirm His complete sovereignty to do as He pleases, with the understanding that in His perfection, whatever He does will always be consistent with His will and will always be perfect in what He does. To man was given a will, one that, like God's, has the capacity to decide, to make choices. Man, unfortunately, made the choice early on to go counter to the expressed will of God, and in so doing, with the introduction of sin into the created order, marred the Imago Dei; man is now known as a "fallen creature". But from what has he fallen? Let me suggest man has fallen from the intended place of being the representation of the Imago Dei, losing out on fellowship and blessing because of the free will choice to sin against the Creator. The glorified body possessed by the risen Christ, in His incarnated state, is the "first-fruits" of what we shall be (see 1 John 3 on this), and what we shall be is "like HIm", that is, in the consummation, we shall be returned to the intended Imago Dei in that incorruptibility that is yet to come (see 1 Corinthians 15 on this).

But true to our Arminian leanings, we in Pentecost affirm that while the Imago Dei was in fact marred with the entrance of sin, it was not destroyed completely. In the process of salvation, the realization of the presence of the Imago Dei is brought back to the understanding (see Colossians 3:9, James 3:9). Our personality, our character, our reasoning abilities, our ability to choose are all aspects of this Imago Dei, and only in the cleansing power of God in Christ, through the means of the salvific process, will man be brought back to the threshhold of a full restoration of the Imago Dei in him, a process that will be made complete when we are in the presence of Him who loved us and washed us with His own blood.

The Sys Theo by Grudem, recommended in the previous post, will be helpful for a wider development of this point. Most of the conservative treatments of the book of Genesis will address this issue as well in the context of the creation saga, but not with the depth that a Sys Theo will.

I hope this is helpful to you.

peace

Pastor Scott .....(and his proverbial dark and windowless office).

Servant89
Oct 2nd 2010, 05:45 PM
The following scripture does not agree.

Jn 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth.

Not forgeting the following.

1 Corinthians 15:40-50
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Firstfruits

Listen, the person of the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are from everlasting, from eterninty. But one day God said:

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

So, that body had a beginning, it came as a baby. Then that body of flesh and blood died and was resurrected as flesh and bones. It is a body that is different from the ones we have now. Apparently it could go though walls (for Jesus appeared suddently while the door was closed) and yet, it is solid (physically solid).

Jn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

So the eternal God decided to life inside a physically solid body, a house, to show forth in the ages to come (when they see his nail prints)...

Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Shalom

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 05:59 PM
I asked Pastor Scott the following follow-up question: when the creation account states that God created us in His image, but God did not have a body (at least until The Son took on flesh to dwell amongst us) in what way are we “in His image”?

Still rolling on the assumption God did not have a body. For which no scripture has been provided. There's so much wrong with what he said there, it would take me over an hour to explain all the errors. Besides, it's not related to the thread.

Zack702
Oct 2nd 2010, 06:50 PM
What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? If so, is it flesh and bone as the Mormons believe?

I don't think so.

I do find it reasonable to consider that God has a shape even that spirit has a shape.

But as far as flesh and bone goes God is not limited to that in my opinion.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 2nd 2010, 06:51 PM
Still rolling on the assumption God did not have a body. For which no scripture has been provided. There's so much wrong with what he said there, it would take me over an hour to explain all the errors. Besides, it's not related to the thread.

Yep...............

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 06:57 PM
Still rolling on the assumption God did not have a body. For which no scripture has been provided. There's so much wrong with what he said there, it would take me over an hour to explain all the errors. Besides, it's not related to the thread.

With all due respect, I'll take his explanations over yours any day. :D

Zack702
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:06 PM
With all due respect, I'll take his explanations over yours any day. :D

However doesn't the bible say that it wasn't untill after we took the knowledge of good and evil did we become like God in what we know ?

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:11 PM
Are you saying that because it says "the man" Christ Jesus, it means he has a physical body?Paul wrote (“said”) that there is one mediator between God and men, “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Paul describes our present and only mediator as “the man” Christ Jesus. I imagine that means Christ Jesus, the man, has some kind of physical body. I don’t imagine it is like ours—ours is the dying kind.


How would you expaln how God will dwell with men in the following scripture?I don’t understand your question. Why would Christ Jesus having some kind of physical body hinder him from dwelling with men?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:16 PM
Virtually everything in this thread can be reconciled very simply, including the Exodus account of Moses and God's backside. It requires putting aside some inherited and acquired doctrines of men that are incomplete and insufficient. But when I present this type of truth, it is evaluated derivatively from certain other doctrines and simplistically dismissed.

Hint: Has anyone EVER considered that The Word (Ho Logos: the Divine Expression), as the source of creation, includes something regarding time and space BEYOND "person"? God is demonstrating Himself AS eternity within time. He is "I AM". It is all in Jesus, but there's much we don't see because it pertains to Him without directly pertaining to us.

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:16 PM
However doesn't the bible say that it wasn't untill after we took the knowledge of good and evil did we become like God in what we know ?

No, that is not what the Bible says. God told Adam & Eve they would die if they ate of the Tree (die spiritually, not physically). Satan told them they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.

Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Apparently, we were created in God's image -- His nature and character -- but without the knowledge of good and evil. This we gained with the Fall. Did it make us as gods? No. No more than Satan's attempt to usurp God make him a god!

I'm no expert on this subject which is why I seek out the wisdom of those who are more studied than I. I know Pastor Scott's level of study and knowledge and so I trust what he tells me. I'll be studying the books he recommends as well so I can learn more about this subject. I think it is an important one -- one we tend to not think enough about!

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:29 PM
I don't think so.

I do find it reasonable to consider that God has a shape even that spirit has a shape.

But as far as flesh and bone goes God is not limited to that in my opinion.Jesus was/is not limited by it.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:31 PM
With all due respect, I'll take his explanations over yours any day. :DWith all due respect he hasn't given even just one verse of scripture to support God not having a body before becoming a man. No one has. So how can you possibly take his opinion over Scripture?

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:32 PM
However doesn't the bible say that it wasn't untill after we took the knowledge of good and evil did we become like God in what we know ?Yes it does. :thumbsup:

Zack702
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:37 PM
But what about verse 22 .

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:39 PM
But what about verse 22 .

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

we did gain that knowledge. but it didn't make us gods, now did it?

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:39 PM
No, that is not what the Bible says.Becoming like God, in anyway, cannot be a bad thing. Right?
Right.
Well, that's what it says happened. Something good happened. That's what it says.
"Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:41 PM
we did gain that knowledge. but it didn't make us gods, now did it?It does not say we would be gods. It says be like gods. Satan was not lying about this. He was lying about not dying.

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:41 PM
Becoming like God, in anyway, cannot be a bad thing. Right?
Right.
Well, that's what it says happened. Something good happened. That's what it says.
"Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

Do you consider us better for The Fall? I don't. God didn't since death was the result.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:54 PM
Simple question: Is it bad/negative....to become like/as God in anyway?

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:58 PM
I'm not asking about the consequence for eating from the tree and disobeying God. That was death just as God said. I am asking about what God said happened to A&E when they ate from the tree.

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 07:59 PM
When it separates us from God it is. When it means spiritual death for which a blood atonement is required, it is. What did we gain that was good from eating the apple?

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:01 PM
You read it and tell me. It plainly says something good happened. What was good about eating from the tree?

Zack702
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:02 PM
we did gain that knowledge. but it didn't make us gods, now did it?

Make no mistake my view of likeness in genesis means similitude or similar but not equal.
My view of image means either shape or destiny. I find it reasonable to consider it means shape.

Zack702
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:04 PM
You read it and tell me. It plainly says something good happened. What was good about eating from the tree?

the knowledge of good?

ProjectPeter
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:06 PM
But then you can't seperate that from the knowledge of bad. I guess I don't see this as a good thing myself. If it was "good" then I suspect they'd of been created with that already in them.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:11 PM
the knowledge of good?"to know good and evil"

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:12 PM
But then you can't seperate that from the knowledge of bad. I guess I don't see this as a good thing myself. If it was "good" then I suspect they'd of been created with that already in them.Impossible. Then they would have had to have been created knowing evil as well. Can't know one without the other and can't outside of experience.

ProjectPeter
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:18 PM
Agree to that... hence why I say it wasn't really all that "good" to know either with them being a package deal. If it was "good" then it would have been included in the original creation. The fact that they had to "sin" to accomplish this would be same as saying that their "sin" led to "good" when in fact their sin led to death (not good).

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:34 PM
However doesn't the bible say that it wasn't untill after we took the knowledge of good and evil did we become like God in what we know ?Hey Zack. Interesting question. I’m thinking Adam and Eve knew good things. They knew fruit tasted good, caring for animals was good, having a help mate was good, walking with God was good, etc. I think after joining the serpent in his rebellion against God, their eyes were opened to the ability to judge good and evil (to know what is good and what is evil). The first example of this is the moment their “eyes were opened” and they judged it necessary to cover their nakedness. Instead of allowing God to be the judge of right and wrong, good and evil, they wanted to be like God in that respect. I don’t think they embraced the wonderful truth that they were already like God (in His image); instead they looked outside of God (within themselves, independent from God) thinking that was the better way. The better way is always making God the center and not yourself the center. We still do this today—we often choose to “eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (wanting to be the judge), rather than allowing God to be the judge over all matters, big and small. Adam and Eve didn’t trust God’s word, they thought it would be good to be “wise” like God in knowing good and evil (being able to judge), they chose to rebel, and this rebellion (this choice to separate themselves from God) got them removed from the Tree of Life. That’s the way I see it.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 08:50 PM
Agree to that... hence why I say it wasn't really all that "good" to know either with them being a package deal.I understood that's what you meant.


If it was "good" then it would have been included in the original creation. The fact that they had to "sin" to accomplish this would be same as saying that their "sin" led to "good" when in fact their sin led to death (not good).It was good they learned it. It plainly says it was good, being something God also knew. Would not have been good to ignore the work of the commandment. Knowledge from experience is good. Knowledge between two opposing factors can be acquired w/o sinning. God didn't get the knowledge of good and evil by sinning but experiencing creatures doing evil, so sinning is not always necessary. It was necessary here for A&E because the two opposing sides are God and Satan. What led to death was disobedience alone. The knowledge gained did not lead to death. These must be separated. God is not dying and has the same knowledge. Through life experiences and decisions, we gain knowledge. Often those are bad decisions and sin. That does not change the knowledge we gain from those experiences, which knowledge is good. Here, by the working of the law is the knowledge of sin, and one can repent and have life.

ProjectPeter
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:03 PM
I understood that's what you meant.

It was good they learned it. It plainly says it was good, being something God also knew. Would not have been good to ignore the work of the commandment. Knowledge from experience is good. Knowledge between two opposing factors can be acquired w/o sinning. God didn't get the knowledge of good and evil by sinning but experiencing creatures doing evil, so sinning is not always necessary. It was necessary here for A&E because the two opposing sides are God and Satan. What led to death was disobedience alone. The knowledge gained did not lead to death. These must be separated. God is not dying and has the same knowledge. Through life experiences and decisions, we gain knowledge. Often those are bad decisions and sin. That does not change the knowledge we gain from those experiences, which knowledge is good. Here, by the working of the law is the knowledge of sin, and one can repent and have life.

Where does God say that it was good? And no... the knowledge didn't lead to sin but it was the desire for it that did. If God told them "do not eat" then how do you suppose it was good? If it was good to have it... then God wouldn't have told them to leave that tree alone don't you think?

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:07 PM
No, that is not what the Bible says. God told Adam & Eve they would die if they ate of the Tree (die spiritually, not physically). Satan told them they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.Hi Frecs. Where does it say that they would die spiritually? I’m just wondering if you get this from a specific Scripture. I do believe they died spiritually the moment they chose to rebel against the Lord. That choice separated them from Him spiritually. After that, they became in need of reconciliation. Actually, I think it’s possible that God’s choice to remove them from the Garden was a merciful act—who would want to live eternally in that state?

Satan told them they would become like God, but he didn’t tell them that they would fail miserably at this endeavor (to know good and evil) for only a perfect and just God can judge righteously. And, of course, he lied about the fact that they would die as a result. This choice would lead to not only freely separating themselves from God but physical death.


Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Apparently, we were created in God's image -- His nature and character -- but without the knowledge of good and evil.As I wrote in my post above (don’t know if you saw it), I would say that Adam and Eve knew and experienced good all the time in the Garden. They knew fruit was good for eating, that Eve was good as a help mate for Adam, and that walking in the Garden with God was certainly good.


This we gained with the Fall. Did it make us as gods? No. No more than Satan's attempt to usurp God make him a god!To try to “be like God” in the ways of mercy, love, and forgiveness is very good. It is not good to try to “be God”—to try to be judge and jury over others. I think that’s what eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil did for Adam and Eve. Choosing to rebel along with the serpent opened them up to the fleshly desire to choose for themselves (outside of God, independent from God) what is right and what is wrong.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:08 PM
Virtually everything in this thread can be reconciled very simply, including the Exodus account of Moses and God's backside. It requires putting aside some inherited and acquired doctrines of men that are incomplete and insufficient. But when I present this type of truth, it is evaluated derivatively from certain other doctrines and simplistically dismissed.

Hint: Has anyone EVER considered that The Word (Ho Logos: the Divine Expression), as the source of creation, includes something regarding time and space BEYOND "person"? God is demonstrating Himself AS eternity within time. He is "I AM". It is all in Jesus, but there's much we don't see because it pertains to Him without directly pertaining to us.

Bolded..........

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:20 PM
When it separates us from God it is. When it means spiritual death for which a blood atonement is required, it is. What did we gain that was good from eating the apple?I agree with you Frecs. We didn't "gain" anything. We thought we could gain something outside of God, even by going against God's clear command. And all that "trying to gain something" got us cut off from God in a big way.

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:23 PM
But then you can't seperate that from the knowledge of bad. I guess I don't see this as a good thing myself. If it was "good" then I suspect they'd of been created with that already in them.PP, don't you think that Adam and Eve already knew good? If you agree, then knowledge of good and evil doesn't mean knowing what good is (i.e. being able to experience good and know that it is a good thing).

Athanasius
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:30 PM
PP, don't you think that Adam and Eve already knew good? If you agree, then knowledge of good and evil doesn't mean knowing what good is (i.e. being able to experience good and know that it is a good thing).

I suspect they didn't know why good was good, so in what capacity could it be said that they knew good? They had nothing to compare 'good' with, it was the status-quo. They set themselves against God in wanting to find out.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:31 PM
Where does God say that it was good?I know, the text/words here don't, but what is happening?
The only other option is ignoring the knowledge. Is that possible?
God experienced good and evil and had the knowledge.
Would it be good to not learn from what happened?
God said-don't-they did-and they learned what it was like to sin in unbelief against a holy God and believe Satan. This knowledge makes repentance possible.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Do you think Adam could have accomplished what the last Adam did? That would have been good, right? It was good Christ lived a life of perfect obedience. I believe that was God's intention for Adam and I believe it was possible.


And no... the knowledge didn't lead to sin but it was the desire for it that did.No. Desires are God given. God made man. Man did not make man. God intended they grow in grace and knowledge as Christ did. Desiring to know about the world we live in is not sin. God said to guard, protect, and subdue. From who/what? When man uses God given desire outside of His law, it is sin.


If God told them "do not eat" then how do you suppose it was good? If it was good to have it... then God wouldn't have told them to leave that tree alone don't you think?There's more than God's perfect will. There is His permissive will as well. Both are good, no?

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:39 PM
Hi Frecs. Where does it say that they would die spiritually? I’m just wondering if you get this from a specific Scripture.

Actually, I think it’s possible that God’s choice to remove them from the Garden was a merciful act—who would want to live eternally in that state?:thumbsup:
........

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:40 PM
I agree with you Frecs. We didn't "gain" anything. We thought we could gain something outside of God, even by going against God's clear command. And all that "trying to gain something" got us cut off from God in a big way.they didn't gain knowledge? Funny, that's what it says.
"the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

Athanasius
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:40 PM
I suspect they didn't know why good was good, so in what capacity could it be said that they knew good? They had nothing to compare 'good' with, it was the status-quo. They set themselves against God in wanting to find out.

Bumping so it isn't missed (last post of page 6).

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:45 PM
Agree to that... hence why I say it wasn't really all that "good" to know either with them being a package deal. If it was "good" then it would have been included in the original creation. The fact that they had to "sin" to accomplish this would be same as saying that their "sin" led to "good" when in fact their sin led to death (not good).Exactly. Which is why I think that this "package deal" is not about knowing what good is (i.e. being able to say "this is a good thing") but being judge and jury over what good and evil are (meaning, this is right of him/her and this is wrong of him/her). This one rebellious act on the part of Adam and Eve opened their eyes to the ability to know (judge) right and wrong, good and evil. Thinking this act would make them wise, their foolish act led them to judge, blame and find fault with each other. Being able to judge wisely is not within our capacity—we fail miserably at it—only God can be the perfect judge. Oh, we continue to try, but when we do so, we are attempting to find our life outside of God, because we foolishly think we can find life in ourselves. I think this is when we try to “get life from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” and we refuse to receive the life freely offered to us by God.

Zack702
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:49 PM
Hey Zack. Interesting question. I’m thinking Adam and Eve knew good things. They knew fruit tasted good, caring for animals was good, having a help mate was good, walking with God was good, etc. I think after joining the serpent in his rebellion against God, their eyes were opened to the ability to judge good and evil (to know what is good and what is evil). The first example of this is the moment their “eyes were opened” and they judged it necessary to cover their nakedness. Instead of allowing God to be the judge of right and wrong, good and evil, they wanted to be like God in that respect. I don’t think they embraced the wonderful truth that they were already like God (in His image); instead they looked outside of God (within themselves, independent from God) thinking that was the better way. The better way is always making God the center and not yourself the center. We still do this today—we often choose to “eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (wanting to be the judge), rather than allowing God to be the judge over all matters, big and small. Adam and Eve didn’t trust God’s word, they thought it would be good to be “wise” like God in knowing good and evil (being able to judge), they chose to rebel, and this rebellion (this choice to separate themselves from God) got them removed from the Tree of Life. That’s the way I see it.

Adam and Eve thought that the fruit of good and evil was good and that it was pleasant to the eyes as it is written they felt this way.
And all living things that are created know these things by smell and sight and feel and taste.
No more than the serpent when it sees a rat.

However on a deeper conscious level Eve believed the serpent just as much as she did The Lord.
Adam believed Eve just as much as he did The Lord.

I find it hard to reason how they were made in the image of The Lord God meaning character when they were so quickly persuaded.

My overall view of Genesis is against the grain of general understanding anyhow.

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 09:54 PM
I do believe they died spiritually the moment they chose to rebel against the Lord.

That choice separated them from Him spiritually.
What scripture do you base these on?

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 10:01 PM
I suspect they didn't know why good was good, so in what capacity could it be said that they knew good? They had nothing to compare 'good' with, it was the status-quo. They set themselves against God in wanting to find out.Thank you for making me think more about this. I would say to you that they knew "bad" on some level. For example, their desire to eat fruit would have been motivated by their feeling of needing to eat fruit, whether through hunger or some other feeling of “missing it.” That is the level of “bad” they could have experienced to compare to the “good.” “Bad” without fruit for too long of a period; “good” with fruit. So, why was good “good”? Good was good because it satisfied a need and without that satisfaction, the unmet need was “bad.”

So, I'm going to stick to my previous conclusion that the "knowledge of good and evil" was a package deal of some kind. It was not in the sense of experiencing and judging what feels good (i.e. knowing good) and comparing that feeling to what feels bad, but it was in the sense of judging between good and evil (attempting to be “like God” – a perfect, just judge).

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 2nd 2010, 10:10 PM
Bumping so it isn't missed (last post of page 6).

Yes, and there's a difference in types of knowledge.

Awareness knowledge, Partially-Experiential knowledge, Thoroughly-Experiential knowledge, Intuitive knowledge.

There's a progression of gnosis from assent to degrees of participation; and those are contrasted to inherent knowledge.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 2nd 2010, 10:12 PM
Thank you for making me think more about this. I would say to you that they knew "bad" on some level. For example, their desire to eat fruit would have been motivated by their feeling of needing to eat fruit, whether through hunger or some other feeling of “missing it.” That is the level of “bad” they could have experienced to compare to the “good.” “Bad” without fruit for too long of a period; “good” with fruit. So, why was good “good”? Good was good because it satisfied a need and without that satisfaction, the unmet need was “bad.”

So, I'm going to stick to my previous conclusion that the "knowledge of good and evil" was a package deal of some kind. It was not in the sense of experiencing and judging what feels good (i.e. knowing good) and comparing that feeling to what feels bad, but it was in the sense of judging between good and evil (attempting to be “like God” – a perfect, just judge).

There's none good but God. So... God IS good.

Did they know good (God)?

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 10:19 PM
they didn't gain knowledge? Funny, that's what it says.
"the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."When I spoke of “gained” to Frecs, I meant a positive gain. What man gained was the experience (i.e. his eyes were opened) of something he already had the ability to do—the ability to go outside of God and choose for himself what is right or wrong. They always had the ability to rebel and once they did, it opened them up to a new level of awareness. They became judges, judging themselves (i.e. ashamed and needing clothing) and judging one another (i.e. Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the serpent). I don’t think this was a positive gain at all. This choice to go outside of God led them to spiritual separation from Him. And it forced Him to lovingly remove them from the Garden and the Tree of Life.

Athanasius
Oct 2nd 2010, 10:21 PM
Thank you for making me think more about this. I would say to you that they knew "bad" on some level. For example, their desire to eat fruit would have been motivated by their feeling of needing to eat fruit, whether through hunger or some other feeling of “missing it.” That is the level of “bad” they could have experienced to compare to the “good.” “Bad” without fruit for too long of a period; “good” with fruit. So, why was good “good”? Good was good because it satisfied a need and without that satisfaction, the unmet need was “bad.”

Though it's pure speculation, I'm not of the opinion they experienced need (e.g. hunger) in the same way we do today. To the extent that your scenario above doesn't pan out (i.e. they wouldn't have experienced what you describe as 'missing it'). I do agree that God's prohibition would needed to have been understood for it to be meaningful. So I'm probably more of the opinion that they knew 'bad' as in 'it is bad to disobey God'. I think as an awareness of 'bad', that should have been enough - they wouldn't have needed to understand the probition, or the consequences (which is different from being aware of the consequences). Furthermore I don't think it's proper to describe the sensation of 'hunger' as bad, even if it isn't good. But that might be going to far off topic (and I write while very tired).



So, I'm going to stick to my previous conclusion that the "knowledge of good and evil" was a package deal of some kind. It was not in the sense of experiencing and judging what feels good (i.e. knowing good) and comparing that feeling to what feels bad, but it was in the sense of judging between good and evil (attempting to be “like God” – a perfect, just judge).

I agree with you here; the result of eating the fruit was being able to make moral judgments. Given the current state of moral enquiry, they shouldn't have eaten the fruit.


Yes, and there's a difference in types of knowledge.

Awareness knowledge, Partially-Experiential knowledge, Thoroughly-Experiential knowledge, Intuitive knowledge.

There's a progression of gnosis from assent to degrees of participation; and those are contrasted to inherent knowledge.

Indeed.

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 10:27 PM
Gotta get ready for a concert. I'll be back later. Love to you all in Christ, our precious Lord.

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 11:39 PM
Responding (knowing someone may have already answered) so you don't think I ignored you...I took a nap. :D


Hi Frecs. Where does it say that they would die spiritually? I’m just wondering if you get this from a specific Scripture. I do believe they died spiritually the moment they chose to rebel against the Lord. That choice separated them from Him spiritually. After that, they became in need of reconciliation. Actually, I think it’s possible that God’s choice to remove them from the Garden was a merciful act—who would want to live eternally in that state?

It doesn't but seems obvious since they did not die physically (immediately) when they ate the apple....while it seems clear they did die spiritually.


Satan told them they would become like God, but he didn’t tell them that they would fail miserably at this endeavor (to know good and evil) for only a perfect and just God can judge righteously. And, of course, he lied about the fact that they would die as a result. This choice would lead to not only freely separating themselves from God but physical death.

Yep. But, the fact that The Liar deceived them isn't the biggest problem. Why was The Liar there in the first place? Why did Adam allow him in the garden? Adam had dominion over the garden. Adam should have never allowed The Liar close enough to them long enough that they began to believe The Liar rather than The Lord.


As I wrote in my post above (don’t know if you saw it), I would say that Adam and Eve knew and experienced good all the time in the Garden. They knew fruit was good for eating, that Eve was good as a help mate for Adam, and that walking in the Garden with God was certainly good.

Yes, I saw it. You are distingishing between physical "good stuff" and "spiritual good stuff". I would agree with that--they clearly were able to enjoy the taste of food and it is recorded that Adam considered Eve to be nice eye candy (clears throat). What they did not know until they sinned was spiritual good/bad. This they learned much to their detriment.


To try to “be like God” in the ways of mercy, love, and forgiveness is very good. It is not good to try to “be God”—to try to be judge and jury over others. I think that’s what eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil did for Adam and Eve. Choosing to rebel along with the serpent opened them up to the fleshly desire to choose for themselves (outside of God, independent from God) what is right and what is wrong.

But, they did not need to try to be like God in terms of mercy, love, and forgiveness -- those were givens in a creation that was in the image of God. That's not the carrot Satan waved in front of them. Satan wanted to BE God...he failed. He tempted Adam & Eve with the idea of being gods...to be on the same level as God in a way they were not already. They learned the hard way on that point... New Agers and others even today are falling for the Lie--that they are gods....I guess the appeal of that never quite leaves...it is Satan's best carrot....

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 11:41 PM
When I spoke of “gained” to Frecs, I meant a positive gain. What man gained was the experience (i.e. his eyes were opened) of something he already had the ability to do—the ability to go outside of God and choose for himself what is right or wrong. They always had the ability to rebel and once they did, it opened them up to a new level of awareness.I agree they always had the choice and knew right from wrong. Experiencing right and wrong is a whole different ballgame.


They became judges, judging themselves (i.e. ashamed and needing clothing) and judging one another (i.e. Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the serpent). I don’t think this was a positive gain at all.Just because no other opportunities for this behavior had arose doesn't mean they were not already capable of the behavior or that anything in their nature changed causing this behavior. It also doesn't imply -all one way or another. IOW, good can and often does come from bad. Bad happens and there can be a positive gain. If they did not sin how would they have truly understood evil? If they ended up having children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great-great grandchildren and had the ability of seeing evil through others as Christ did, they could have understood the ramifications of sin. But it didn't happen this way. They sinned and learned it that way. How else would they, if not through their own decisions and experience?

As a child you are told by a parent not to do something because it is wrong. Then one day you do it, and you wish someone had explained how dirty you would feel and that through this explanation you could have really understood the dirty feeling so that you would not have done it. Telling you 'do not' was not enough. Telling you how you would feel could not be enough. You have to experience it first hand or seeing it through others. Now, that you've done what you were told not to do and know how it feels to sin, the next time you consider doing what you were told not to do because it is wrong you have something to work with. Knowledge. Eyes opened. Knowledge you did not have before. Knowledge of what it is like to sin against a holy God.


This choice to go outside of God led them to spiritual separation from Him.Well, I asked earlier for why you believe this, and I don't want to derail the thread into spiritual death (we have plenty of those threads), but I don't see this anywhere. Where was God when they sinned? When God returned, was His method of communication different than before they sinned? For that matter, was it different later with Cain?

Frecs
Oct 2nd 2010, 11:51 PM
Just because no other opportunities for this behavior had arose doesn't mean they were not already capable of the behavior or that anything in their nature changed causing this behavior. It also doesn't imply -all one way or another. IOW, good can and often does come from bad. Bad happens and there can be a positive gain. If they did not sin how would they have truly understood evil? If they ended up having children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great-great grandchildren and had the ability of seeing evil through others as Christ did, they could have understood the ramifications of sin. But it didn't happen this way. They sinned and learned it that way. How else would they, if not through their own decisions and experience?

They didn't need to know evil or it's consequences. If they did, God would have taught them about it. To suggest that bad/evil is a good thing because sometimes good consequences come from it is the epitome of The Lie -- sinning is okay because there is benefit to it. Nothing is okay if God says it is bad/evil/sinful regardless of what "good" might come from the act.

LookingUp
Oct 2nd 2010, 11:53 PM
OK, I'm ready. I have a few more minutes before I have to leave, so...


What scripture do you base these on?No Scripture in particular. When I say I believe Adam and Eve "died spiritually" and/or that their rebellion caused them to be separated from God in a spiritual way, I mean that they now needed to be reconciled through the Redeemer (something they didn’t need before they rebelled) to get into a right relationship with God again (i.e. they needed to be born again, come alive spiritually, restore the lost union with God). Do you see things differently?

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 11:58 PM
It doesn't but seems obvious since they did not die physically (immediately) when they ate the apple....That day they were kept from the trre of life. That day they died. The Hebrew is dying you will die. It's used later in 1Kings where a man was told he would die the day he left Jerusalem. He left and did not die that day. It was certain his leaving would get back to the king and it was certain the king would put him to death. He died later, though he really died the day he left Jerusalem. See how that works?
"dying you will die"


Yep. But, the fact that The Liar deceived them isn't the biggest problem.Again, he just said they'd be like God. God said man has become like us. Explain to me how this was a lie.


Why was The Liar there in the first place?He was in Eden the garden of God as the anointed cherub that covered in brightness (supreme potentate) long before Adam was. He ascended above the clouds from there, went against God in heaven, and God casts him back down to the earth and he fell from his spiritual position of authority. He had every right to be there, but not every right to stay now that Adam was given authority.


Why did Adam allow him in the garden? Adam had dominion over the garden. Adam should have never allowed The Liar close enough to them long enough that they began to believe The Liar rather than The Lord. According to the text, Adam did not know what to guard, protect, keep his dominion from and who/what to subdue. It doesn't appear to me that Adam knew who he was dealing with, does it?

Sirus
Oct 2nd 2010, 11:59 PM
They didn't need to know evil or it's consequences. If they did, God would have taught them about it. To suggest that bad/evil is a good thing because sometimes good consequences come from it is the epitome of The Lie -- sinning is okay because there is benefit to it. Nothing is okay if God says it is bad/evil/sinful regardless of what "good" might come from the act.Completely agree. That's what I said. Read it again please.

Sirus
Oct 3rd 2010, 12:06 AM
OK, I'm ready. I have a few more minutes before I have to leave, so...

No Scripture in particular. When I say I believe Adam and Eve "died spiritually" and/or that their rebellion caused them to be separated from God in a spiritual way, I mean that they now needed to be reconciled through the Redeemer (something they didn’t need before they rebelled) to get into a right relationship with God again (i.e. they needed to be born again, come alive spiritually, restore the lost union with God). Do you see things differently?I don't see a separation.
I agree "they now needed to be reconciled through the Redeemer".
I don't see wrong/different relationship (you said "right relationship").
I don't see spiritual death (which is the second death and future)
I don't see "reconciled through the Redeemer" as restoring a broken union because I don't see a broken union or that they lost anything, other than the tree of life and garden.

LookingUp
Oct 3rd 2010, 12:07 AM
Adam and Eve thought that the fruit of good and evil was good and that it was pleasant to the eyes as it is written they felt this way.
And all living things that are created know these things by smell and sight and feel and taste.
No more than the serpent when it sees a rat.

However on a deeper conscious level Eve believed the serpent just as much as she did The Lord.
Adam believed Eve just as much as he did The Lord.Good point. They sure did believe others over the Lord. And why did they think that they could determine who was more trustworthy? How is that they could properly judge this at all? It’s interesting, though, that Eve was deceived (Gen. 3:13) and Adam simply “listened to the voice of his wife” (Gen. 3:17).


I find it hard to reason how they were made in the image of The Lord God meaning character when they were so quickly persuaded.God can be persuaded. Consider all the times that Moses got Him to change His mind.


My overall view of Genesis is against the grain of general understanding anyhow.I’m listening.

Sirus
Oct 3rd 2010, 12:17 AM
Good point. They sure did believe others over the Lord. And why did they think that they could determine who was more trustworthy? How is that they could properly judge this at all? It’s interesting, though, that Eve was deceived (Gen. 3:13) and Adam simply “listened to the voice of his wife” (Gen. 3:17).They had dominion? An interpretation is that 'be like gods' is angels, not God (Yes, I know what the Hebrew is). Jesus said 'it is written I said ye are gods', referring to angels. So as the interpretation goes, A&E apparently had seen some interesting things if they knew about angels. Maybe cherubim? Seraphim? Who knows? So a serpent talking wasn't all that strange. A lot of assumption here I know. The point is that they had no reason to not trust God's creations other than God's commandment. I know that's big. So the reasoning is that they reasoned. We sometimes do this and deceive ourselves right into sinning. Born again believers foolishly do that. Why not A&E?

Sirus
Oct 3rd 2010, 12:25 AM
OK, I'm ready.BTW; what concert? If you don't mind my asking.

LookingUp
Oct 3rd 2010, 12:26 AM
BTW; what concert? If you don't mind my asking.Carrie Underwood at the Hollywood Bowl.

Our friends still aren't here to pick us up...so, I'm still reading.

LookingUp
Oct 3rd 2010, 12:28 AM
There's none good but God. So... God IS good.

Did they know good (God)?They sure did know good (God)!

LookingUp
Oct 3rd 2010, 12:35 AM
Though it's pure speculation, I'm not of the opinion they experienced need (e.g. hunger) in the same way we do today.You could be right.


To the extent that your scenario above doesn't pan out (i.e. they wouldn't have experienced what you describe as 'missing it'). I do agree that God's prohibition would needed to have been understood for it to be meaningful. So I'm probably more of the opinion that they knew 'bad' as in 'it is bad to disobey God'. I think as an awareness of 'bad', that should have been enough - they wouldn't have needed to understand the probition, or the consequences (which is different from being aware of the consequences). Furthermore I don't think it's proper to describe the sensation of 'hunger' as bad, even if it isn't good. But that might be going to far off topic (and I write while very tired).I’ll have to give more thought to what you’ve shared.


I agree with you here; the result of eating the fruit was being able to make moral judgments. Given the current state of moral enquiry, they shouldn't have eaten the fruit.I’ll say!

ProjectPeter
Oct 3rd 2010, 01:32 AM
PP, don't you think that Adam and Eve already knew good? If you agree, then knowledge of good and evil doesn't mean knowing what good is (i.e. being able to experience good and know that it is a good thing).Not about knowing "good" but knowing good and evil such as knowing to choose between good and evil. Example... being naked wasn't bothersome to them at all until they had eaten of the fruit. It was then... it became "dirty" to be naked such as they were. Their "knowledge" totally changed at that point they became disobedient to God.

ProjectPeter
Oct 3rd 2010, 01:38 AM
I know, the text/words here don't, but what is happening?
The only other option is ignoring the knowledge. Is that possible?
God experienced good and evil and had the knowledge.
Would it be good to not learn from what happened?
God said-don't-they did-and they learned what it was like to sin in unbelief against a holy God and believe Satan. This knowledge makes repentance possible.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Do you think Adam could have accomplished what the last Adam did? That would have been good, right? It was good Christ lived a life of perfect obedience. I believe that was God's intention for Adam and I believe it was possible.I agree that this was God's intention for Adam and I too believe it was possible. Nevertheless... when Adam in fact sinned that possibility became a moot point. As to it being good so that we could have grace... That's like using hindsight and saying "see!" I don't think that was God's intent either. :)




No. Desires are God given. God made man. Man did not make man. God intended they grow in grace and knowledge as Christ did. Desiring to know about the world we live in is not sin. God said to guard, protect, and subdue. From who/what? When man uses God given desire outside of His law, it is sin.

There's more than God's perfect will. There is His permissive will as well. Both are good, no?God is good yes and all that God does. But that they ate from the tree... that isn't good. To say that you have to say that disobedience is ultimately good because in doing that... they disobeyed God. If God said "don't eat" then that was the "good". Disobeying God in that case was bad and nothing good came from it.

Sirus
Oct 3rd 2010, 01:59 AM
I did not say eating was good. Sinning is not good. I said the result was good because they became like God, knowing something they needed to know. Sure it would have been better, much better, to learn it w/o sinning (perfect will) as Christ did, but the fact remains, they learned it by sinning (permissive will). So what.....? Becoming like God, to know good and evil wasn't good? Scripture says it was. How can you say nothing good came of it?

ProjectPeter
Oct 3rd 2010, 03:02 AM
I did not say eating was good. Sinning is not good. I said the result was good because they became like God, knowing something they needed to know. Sure it would have been better, much better, to learn it w/o sinning (perfect will) as Christ did, but the fact remains, they learned it by sinning (permissive will). So what.....? Becoming like God, to know good and evil wasn't good? Scripture says it was. How can you say nothing good came of it?Uh... if it was good then why did God not create them with it from the start? Why come from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why did God command them not to eat of this tree if God thought this would be good for them to do? I dare say... if it was good then God would have told them... go ahead and eat... you won't die. Nevertheless... that was a message that came from elsewhere... not from God eh?

Sirus
Oct 3rd 2010, 04:49 AM
Uh... if it was good then why did God not create them with it from the start?Why doesn't God just "give faith" to everyone and make sure they keep faith firm unto the end? Why didn't God just create them to not be able to sin? Because some things have to be learned. This is one. No one is just given this knowledge, not even Christ (Isa 7:15-16), because it must be learned/experience first hand or seeing others. God could not just give them the experience of disobedience. Well, I'm sure He could have, but why? Here Adam, this is what it is going to 'feel like'/be like if you disobey me. Noah, it's gonna rain and I'm going to flood the earth, here's what rain looks like -whoosh -yeah, wow, I see, I believe you now God. Abraham, you're going to have a baby, here's all the details...xyz- gonna wait til you're old and can't etc..., so don't go trying to accomplish it in the flesh. God doesn't work like that....anywhere in scripture. The trial of our faith is much more precious than gold that perishes.


Why come from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?It was an experience, not an infusion of instant knowledge of all good and evil. Fruit can't do that.


Why did God command them not to eat of this tree if God thought this would be good for them to do? I dare say... if it was good then God would have told them... go ahead and eat... you won't die. Nevertheless... that was a message that came from elsewhere... not from God eh?No, because the fruit did not contain knowledge and there was were plenty to eat. That's not what this tree was about. This was a trial of faith. You say, God does not tempt any man with evil? It is easily said this was temptation with good. God created natural corruptible mortal man with flesh -lusts and desire, gave him the ability to choose good and evil, gave him a commandment which yielded continued blessing if he obeyed and cursing if he disobeyed, and then left.

Sirus
Oct 3rd 2010, 05:09 AM
As to it being good so that we could have grace... That's like using hindsight and saying "see!" I don't think that was God's intent either. :) Oh, and just for the record, I didn't say this so I don't know where you got that from. That sounds reformed, which I'm not.

Scruffy Kid
Oct 3rd 2010, 06:26 AM
I should like to return, for a moment, to the question asked by the OP.


What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? If so, is it flesh and bone as the Mormons believe?

Of course not.

God is without body, passions, or parts, as the Westminster Confession of 1646 puts it in paraphrasing the consensus of the Church (that is, of faithful Christians) through the ages, from their careful reading of the Scriptures.

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory. [Westminster confession, from Article 1]
God is the source of all being, all existence (as well as of all love, goodness, truth, and life, righteousness, judgment, and mercy).

The 7-day creation account makes this completely clear, in a variety of ways. God made all that is -- light and dark, heavens and earth, land and water, plant-life, sun, moon, and stars, birds and fish, animals on land, and human beings. (Gen. 1:1-2:3) Further, He made all these things, and the totality of them, as well, not as a carpenter makes a chair or desk from wood, but ex nihilo, out of nothing, by speaking them into existence, rather than relying on any prior substance or material.

This same point is made, in a different form, in the account of the call of Moses, in Ex. 3:1-3:20 ff. . There God reveals Himself to Moses speaking from a bush which burns but is not consumed, and revealing His name to Moses as YHWH -- roughly "I am" and "I am that I am". This revelation of the Divine Name is as central to the whole framework of Biblical truth as is the creation and the Exodus, and it clearly re-emphasizes that God is not like ordinary or extraordinary objects (sun, moon, stars, seas, animals): rather, these things come into being and pass away, but God (YHWH) is the inexhaustible source of his own being, and of all else that is. (This is revealed in the image of the bush, as well as in the Divine Name; and further reiterated in the mission of salvation He commissions Moses for, and in other elements of the larger Moses and Exodus narrative.)

In short, then, God reveals Himself to us in the basic concepts which animate the Bible, as well as in specific key passages, as completely self-sufficient, completely the source of His own being, and as beyond our conceptions of being, and as the Source and Ruler of all that is.

Furthermore, God's position (with respect to us, as His creatures) as Maker and Ruler of all does not simply mean that He filled up space (and time) with various objects which he called into being, like to how a human being may "make a home" by filling an empty house or apartment up with furniture, and so on. Just as God did not make the sun, moon, seas, and stars out of pre-existent matter which He found lying around (for that would be to suppose that God was not the sole creator, limited, and needing to rely upon that pre-existent matter) so similarly, God did not make these things (ex nihilo) placing them in an empty universe which He found lying around somewhere. That again would mean that God was limited, and relied on a framework of space and time of which He Himself was not the Creator. Rather, God made time and space (or space-time), and the laws of physics, and all that fills them, the galaxies and inter-galactic dust, the photons and the seas and the sun and the moon -- all these things, all in conjuction, all together -- as parts of His act of creation.

It would also be a misconception to think of God as creating a world -- a framework of space and time, and the earth and sky and seas and plants and animals, and us -- like a human artist or workman may make a picture, or sculpture, which continues to exist even when the artist walks away from it. The human craftsman is making an object out of matter (wood, stone, clay, canvas, paper, pigments) which is already there, that is, out of pre-existent matter (and in an already existing framework of time and space and physical laws). Because builders and artists like us -- creatures, whether human beings, or beavers, or robots, or martians (if there are any) or angels for that matter -- are merely reshaping matter that's already there, the painting or sculpture that we make, once properly fashioned, will then continue in existence without our further maintaining it, or even thinking about it. Once it's made, it's made; and the paintings and statues and bas reliefs and frescos Michaelangelo or Della Robia or Giotto made didn't cease to exist when those artists died, centuries ago. Why? Only because the matter out of which the statues and paintings are made continues in existence without those artists' attention to it; and it does because they didn't make that matter, they just reshaped it. The matter goes on existing (in the form of the statue they've made) when they have departed. But that happens only because the matter in our world continues, and does not decay into nothingness.

But the reason the world does fall into non-existence like that is because God sustains it in being. If God ceased to uphold us all in being -- the earth, the sun, the galaxy, or angels, or you and me -- we and these things would cease to exist. Not only originally, at the moment in time when it is first formed, but at every moment of existence, each thing continues in being not because of its own absolute power to go on existing, but because God upholds it in being. Thus, the universe is not like a sculpture, or like a clock which some worker makes, but which, once made, can continue ticking away on its own. Rather, God the Creator is the Creator of every moment, and every location, as well as the objects which inhabit these locations or move about. God is the Creator of everything at all times -- not just at some past moment of creation -- because anything other than God can exist only because He holds it in being at every moment of its existence.

The things we call "bodies", material or physical bodies, are things which have their being at specific points in space (and time), and whose existence is itself physical, that is, based upon its material constitution (that is, its material "constitutedness"). That is implied by describing them as "bodies". They are located here, or there, not everywhere. Thus bodies depend for their existence on the framework of time and space in which they are located. Their existence also depends upon the material which they are made of. They can be acted upon, and wrecked, or can become rancid and decay. In fact, things that have bodily existence are highly dependent upon the material conditions which surround them, and which are central to their existence. If animals don't eat, they die and decay; if plants lack sun and water, they do the same. If wood, or soil, or even granite is eroded, or undergoes chemical changes within itself, it too wastes away.

Not so God. God is the source of His own being -- the great I-AM, YHWH, I-am-that-I am -- and not dependent upon anything for His being.

For just this reason, He is the one who gives existence (as a free gift) to every creature, that is, to everything else that exists.

Unlike material objects which cannot pour forth energy without the energy being used up, God is like a burning bush which burns and yet is not consumed by its own flames, its outpouring of heat and light. Such a bush is inexhaustible: it can go on giving, and go on burning, without needing any source of further fuel or existence, and without getting used up. To say -- in the Biblical sense, as Jews and Christians understand the idea of Creator (as distinct from ancient Greeks and Romans, and so on) -- that God is the Creator is to say that God needs nothing from all He has created -- for He is its inexhaustible source! (The creation, however, constantly needs its Creator!) As Psalm 50 notes, in a speech to the faithful from God (50:7), "Every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills" (50:10), and "if [He] were hungry [He] would not ask us" for food (50:12)! Therefore, our relationship to Him is not one of supplying Him with what He needs, but of calling upon Him, who loves us, to supply our needs (50:13-15). As Paul explains to the Athenians, in Acts 17:24-28

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And He made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after Him and find Him. Yet He is not far from each one of us,for "In Him we live and move and have our being"; as even some of your poets have said, "For we are indeed His offspring."

For just these reasons, God does not "have a body" in the sense that the OP asked about.

Bodies are located here, or there, with some powers and not others, moving through time, changeable.
God, instead, is "the high and lofty one Who inhabits eternity, Whose name is holy" (Is. 57:15).
He dwells not in the realm of created things, though He is near them, sustaining them in being (else they would not exist).
Rrather, Scripture tells us, He must "stoop [even] to behold", created things.
He must condescend greatly, coming down to our level, even to look upon, "the heavens"
to say nothing of "the earth" as well (Ps. 113).
His dwelling place is not in the world or worlds that He has made, but in the fullness of His own glory and His own presence.

God is not located on earth, nor in the stratosphere, nor spread out throughout the universe like peanut butter spread on toast, but is active by His sustaining work at every point of the universe. He keeps all the quarks obedient to the laws of quantum mechanics, and the photons propagating according to the laws of electromagnetic radiation. He is not like some little transparent dwarf, or unseen mechanic, running about frantically from one atom to the next, and one galaxy to the next, and keeping them in tune with busy hands, or with an inventive mind coming up with the right formula for their orbits just in time. Rather, all things that exist (including time, space, angels, us, and laws of physics, as well as cans of soup and sheep on the hillside) can exist only because, continually, He holds them all in being. And He dwells not in our universe at all, but in the fullness of His own eternal presence, calmly and effortlessly sustaining in being all else that is, simply by his choosing that it shall be so, or (to put it a different way) by commanding that it shall be so just as the Bible, in Genesis 1 and elsewhere, clearly indicates.

Firstfruits
Oct 3rd 2010, 08:20 AM
1 Cor 15:50 states that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, it doesn't say flesh and bone can't. And besides, since the Bible teaches we will dwell upon the earth forever, this puts the kingdom of God on the earth, not in heaven, even tho the kingdom of God is obviously also in heaven.


Read Ezekiel chapter 37 again. Notice that there's bones, and there's flesh, but no mention of any blood. IOW these equal a flesh and bone body, just like we saw Jesus having. Perhaps we will even still eat food in that new body. Jesus did,

The bones represent Israel, and how they were cut off, without hope. One day a remnant of Israel will return and be saved.

It is a spiritual representation.

No flesh can inherit heaven, it is not celestial.

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.

1 Cor 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

God is celestial, God is spirit. We shall be as he is.

Firstfruits

Sirus
Oct 3rd 2010, 04:08 PM
Are you saying that because it says "the man" Christ Jesus, it means he has a physical body? How would you expaln how God will dwell with men in the following scripture?

Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.I know LookingUp answered this, but I wanted to give my 2 cents. It's a matter of dominion and authority. God created man and gave him dominion over all the works of His hands and crowned him with glory and honor. All in Adam sinned. The second man did not. All authority in heaven and earth was given to this man before the cross because He loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore He was anointed with the oil of gladness above all His fellows, receiving the Spirit in fullness and not in measure. The cross was not necessary to obtain this dominion and authority. Righteousness was. So we see Jesus, who is the Son of man, and returns as the Son of man, to establish that kingdom of heaven which is on earth, that He offered Israel as promised to Abraham (they rejected their king), which kingdom God originally intended in Adam -man. God did not change His plan because of sin.

It was therefore necessary that He be a man and necessary that He remain a man. Glorified? Yes. As originally intended for Adam. He is the man Christ Jesus, and remains a man -Son of man- still needing to fulfill the prophecies and promises of God of an everlasting kingdom on earth -the kingdom under the whole heaven (Dan 7:27) under God's rule through man- which has not yet been established.

divaD
Oct 3rd 2010, 05:00 PM
The bones represent Israel, and how they were cut off, without hope. One day a remnant of Israel will return and be saved.

It is a spiritual representation.

No flesh can inherit heaven, it is not celestial.

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.

1 Cor 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

God is celestial, God is spirit. We shall be as he is.

Firstfruits


While this is true, it could also represent what their resurrected bodies will consist of after the resurrection. The Scriptures can contain both spiritual and literal at the same time.

Ezekiel 37:9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.


Unless one is of the preterist persuasion, Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 are clearly pointing to the resurrection at the end of days. These verses are either parallel to Ezekiel 37:9, or just one big coincedence. Personally, I favor the former.

Zack702
Oct 3rd 2010, 06:11 PM
Good point. They sure did believe others over the Lord. And why did they think that they could determine who was more trustworthy? How is that they could properly judge this at all? It’s interesting, though, that Eve was deceived (Gen. 3:13) and Adam simply “listened to the voice of his wife” (Gen. 3:17).


The thing is I'm not sure it even crossed there mind who was more trustworthy.
Untill after they took the knowledge of good and evil and then they were afraid because the LORD commanded them not to.
But it could be that they were willingly rebelling.

Taking both of these into consideration or either of them makes it considerable for me that likeness could mean similitude of form and not character.
To me if likeness and image means character or values then why is it they became like "us" in knowing after.
Or why is it that they did not forsee or why is it that they willingly rebelled.

I find it reasonable to consider likeness can mean visible form.
If likeness does mean form.
Then maybe it is considerable that who is written often as the LORD God has or can have a visible likeness.
Maybe that is a controversial idea but I don't think God is limited to not having a visible form.

LookingUp
Oct 3rd 2010, 06:32 PM
I don't see a separation.
I agree "they now needed to be reconciled through the Redeemer".
I don't see wrong/different relationship (you said "right relationship").
I don't see spiritual death (which is the second death and future)
I don't see "reconciled through the Redeemer" as restoring a broken union because I don't see a broken union or that they lost anything, other than the tree of life and garden.Who/what needed to be reconciled if not man and God (i.e. their relationship)?

LookingUp
Oct 3rd 2010, 06:36 PM
They had dominion? An interpretation is that 'be like gods' is angels, not God (Yes, I know what the Hebrew is). Jesus said 'it is written I said ye are gods', referring to angels. So as the interpretation goes, A&E apparently had seen some interesting things if they knew about angels. Maybe cherubim? Seraphim? Who knows? So a serpent talking wasn't all that strange. A lot of assumption here I know. The point is that they had no reason to not trust God's creations other than God's commandment. I know that's big. So the reasoning is that they reasoned. We sometimes do this and deceive ourselves right into sinning. Born again believers foolishly do that. Why not A&E?All interesting points to ponder. Thanks.

LookingUp
Oct 3rd 2010, 07:22 PM
Not about knowing "good" but knowing good and evil such as knowing to choose between good and evil.But they were created with the ability to choose evil over good. That was not something new given to them after they ate the fruit. They experienced choosing good every time they refused to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And we know they knew they could choose evil over good, because, as we know, they eventually applied that knowledge by freely choosing to do an evil thing.


Example... being naked wasn't bothersome to them at all until they had eaten of the fruit. It was then... it became "dirty" to be naked such as they were. Their "knowledge" totally changed at that point they became disobedient to God.After sinning against God, they felt (experienced) guilt. The feeling of guilt comes from judging yourself—judging for yourself what is good and what is evil. After experiencing guilt, their eyes were opened to this “new power” to judge for themselves what is good and what is evil. So, they covered their nakedness. Was being naked a bad thing? If so, according to who? Apparently, God found it just fine for them to be naked, but they judged it to be a “bad” thing. So, it seems they didn’t “become like God” in their ability to properly judge what is good and what is evil. They became “like God” in that they were now actively deciding for themselves what was considered good and what was considered evil, but they were unable to be perfect judges on good and evil. They “became like God” but this would only ruin them for they were unable to perfectly judge good and evil as a perfectly just God can, and so He removed them from the Garden so that they would not eat from the Tree of Life and live eternally with this “curse.” That’s my take on it at this time.

Firstfruits
Oct 3rd 2010, 08:29 PM
While this is true, it could also represent what their resurrected bodies will consist of after the resurrection. The Scriptures can contain both spiritual and literal at the same time.

Ezekiel 37:9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.


Unless one is of the preterist persuasion, Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 are clearly pointing to the resurrection at the end of days. These verses are either parallel to Ezekiel 37:9, or just one big coincedence. Personally, I favor the former.

Knowing that God is a spirit and therefore having a celestial/heavenly body, celestial and physical are not the same.

Firstfruits

divaD
Oct 3rd 2010, 09:38 PM
Knowing that God is a spirit and therefore having a celestial/heavenly body, celestial and physical are not the same.

Firstfruits

Perhaps we're not on the same page here. I'm speaking of resurrected humans, not God the Father. There is no way I believe God the Father is flesh and bones. But we know Jesus was flesh and bones when He was seen by His disciples. If that body was good enough for Jesus, then I would think it's good enough for us. When Jesus arose bodily, He was flesh and bones. The question is, did He remain that way?

divaD
Oct 3rd 2010, 09:42 PM
But they were created with the ability to choose evil over good. That was not something new given to them after they ate the fruit. They experienced choosing good every time they refused to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And we know they knew they could choose evil over good, because, as we know, they eventually applied that knowledge by freely choosing to do an evil thing.



I couldn't agree more.

If one thinks about it, isn't it logical they they already knew right from wrong, even before they sinned? If they did not already know the difference between right and wrong, then what purpose did God's command serve, that they partake not of the forbidden tree? What kept them from the tree, before satan tempted them?

LookingUp
Oct 4th 2010, 04:21 AM
I couldn't agree more.

If one thinks about it, isn't it logical they they already knew right from wrong, even before they sinned? If they did not already know the difference between right and wrong, then what purpose did God's command serve, that they partake not of the forbidden tree? What kept them from the tree, before satan tempted them?Right, divaD. They already knew the difference, because God told them what was right (good) and what was wrong (evil). They obeyed God, for a time, because they knew it was right to do so.

Which is why I say that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not mean that they all of the sudden acquired knowledge of good (i.e. what was right), and all of the sudden acquired knowledge of evil (i.e. what was wrong), as if either of the two concepts could be somehow transmitted from a piece of fruit. So, just what did this rebellion provoke in them? I say that this rebellion/disobedience “opened their eyes” to something they didn’t see (experience) before they rebelled. They experienced guilt, which led them to realize that they could judge for themselves what is good and what is evil, if they so chose, rather than trust God to judge what is good and what is evil. They decided to "become like God" and become judge over things they had no right to be judge over.

Firstfruits
Oct 4th 2010, 12:30 PM
Perhaps we're not on the same page here. I'm speaking of resurrected humans, not God the Father. There is no way I believe God the Father is flesh and bones. But we know Jesus was flesh and bones when He was seen by His disciples. If that body was good enough for Jesus, then I would think it's good enough for us. When Jesus arose bodily, He was flesh and bones. The question is, did He remain that way?

That is what I am asking also, because before Jesus came from God he was as God is, spirit. If he remained flesh he would be restricted with what he could do.

Firstfruits

Frecs
Oct 4th 2010, 01:51 PM
That is what I am asking also, because before Jesus came from God he was as God is, spirit. If he remained flesh he would be restricted with what he could do.

Firstfruits

FF, did you see the posts I made with comments from a pastor that I know? I found his response on this issue quite helpful.

Firstfruits
Oct 4th 2010, 02:06 PM
FF, did you see the posts I made with comments from a pastor that I know? I found his response on this issue quite helpful.

Can you tell me what number it is please?

Thanks!

Firstfruits

Frecs
Oct 4th 2010, 02:10 PM
Can you tell me what number it is please?

Thanks!

Firstfruits

The first one was #44 and the second was #55.

Firstfruits
Oct 4th 2010, 02:34 PM
The first one was #44 and the second was #55.

Thanks Frecs,

Just finished reading your posts, I need to study them some more to fully understand what he is saying.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Frecs
Oct 4th 2010, 02:39 PM
Thanks Frecs,

Just finished reading your posts, I need to study them some more to fully understand what he is saying.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

You are very welcome. Pastor Scott spends way too much time in his dark and windowless office studying obscure theological books but somehow he manages to be an awesome Pastor at the same time. (And, no I do not attend his church. I've just had to immense pleasure of being able to pick his brain for about a decade now via an email list.)

divaD
Oct 4th 2010, 02:59 PM
That is what I am asking also, because before Jesus came from God he was as God is, spirit. If he remained flesh he would be restricted with what he could do.

Firstfruits



When Jesus resurrected, did He not resurrect as a man? Did He not die as a man? I know the Bible says we will be as the angels in heaven, which could simply mean not able to die. But perhaps as in physical too? We know angels ate food, and they even appeared as humans a few times. So who knows? But one thing is for sure, we can never be like God the Father in our resurrected bodies, because whatever He consists of, we can never consist of that ourselves, because we're the created, not the creator. And as far as Jesus, we know He was seen with flesh and bones, and that he even ate food. Putting 2 and 2 together from several clues, I believe it's possible He had already ascended to the Father before this point, and then returned. But I'm not certain this is so, but it seems possible, deducing it from clues in various passages.

Firstfruits
Oct 4th 2010, 03:21 PM
When Jesus resurrected, did He not resurrect as a man? Did He not die as a man? I know the Bible says we will be as the angels in heaven, which could simply mean not able to die. But perhaps as in physical too? We know angels ate food, and they even appeared as humans a few times. So who knows? But one thing is for sure, we can never be like God the Father in our resurrected bodies, because whatever He consists of, we can never consist of that ourselves, because we're the created, not the creator. And as far as Jesus, we know He was seen with flesh and bones, and that he even ate food. Putting 2 and 2 together from several clues, I believe it's possible He had already ascended to the Father before this point, and then returned. But I'm not certain this is so, but it seems possible, deducing it from clues in various passages.

When we die and are resurrected we have to be changed so that we can inherit/live in heaven.

Jesus, the word was God and put on flesh in order to fulfil the will of God, his plan of salvation.

Now that Jesus has returned home to heaven, why would he not return to how he was before he came?

Firstfruits

divaD
Oct 4th 2010, 05:45 PM
Now that Jesus has returned home to heaven, why would he not return to how he was before he came?

Firstfruits


This may very well be true. But what does that say about us? If Jesus returned and went to being like He was before, being God, and no longer man, then that couldn't apply to us anyway. We can never be like God, in the sense that we somehow become uncreated like He is, that we consist of what He does. We were made from dust, He wasn't.
So if we exist forever on the earth in a flesh and bone body, then I don't see the problem, because it's still going to be a glorified body. Do you think we're just going to be made out of nothing, be like Casper the ghost or something?.

Firstfruits
Oct 4th 2010, 06:35 PM
This may very well be true. But what does that say about us? If Jesus returned and went to being like He was before, being God, and no longer man, then that couldn't apply to us anyway. We can never be like God, in the sense that we somehow become uncreated like He is, that we consist of what He does. We were made from dust, He wasn't.
So if we exist forever on the earth in a flesh and bone body, then I don't see the problem, because it's still going to be a glorified body. Do you think we're just going to be made out of nothing, be like Casper the ghost or something?.

With regards to the following why does it not apply to us?

1 Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

God bless!

Firstfruits

Scruffy Kid
Oct 4th 2010, 06:38 PM
What I believe, and what I understand Christians have always professed, from ancient times, and through the Reformation, following the Bible's teaching, is this:

When the Incarnation occurred, God the Son, the Eternal Word, did not cease to be God. He became man

Instead, he took to Himself a new and different mode of existence, as well, as a human being.
As man, the eternal Word had properties that God, as God, does not, and cannot, have.
He could be hungry, there were things He had to learn, He could be wounded, He was born, He died.
These things Christ Jesus, the Eternal Word and Son of God, did, as a man, as a human being.

Yet, this does not mean that Christ, the Eternal Word, had a period of time when He ceased to be God.
God does not move through time, as we do, nor is He located in space, for He made these things,
and He existed prior to the creation of time and space and of all that fills them.
For God, instead, made all time and space, all matter and beings, and lives beyond their limitations.

King Solomon says

Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee" (I Kings 8:27) and the Apostle Paul refers (Acts 14:15) to the

living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. and states (Acts 17:24-28) that

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, ... that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being' ... 'For we are indeed his offspring.'

Thus when Christ our God, the Eternal Word and Son of God, took human flesh (morphe doulou labon, Phil. 2) and became a human being, He "emptied himself", laid aside His equality with God, and became "like us in all things, except for sin" not in the sense that Christ's Divine nature ceased to exist, but rather in the sense that as man, that is in His human nature, He was not omniscient, immortal, omnipotent, beyond time and space, and so on. Rather, Christ is, and was, fully God and fully man (that is, fully a human being), both. He thus exists in two modes, two natures, as man and as God.

Accordingly, the human nature of Christ Jesus suffered death, "and being raised from the dead dies no more." As a human being, fully human, with a human soul and body, and subject to human limitations and weaknesses, Jesus suffered and died for us, and rose from the dead. The resurrected body bears the scars of the crucifixion, and ascends into heaven triumphantly bearing these wounds by which He has overcome sin, hell, death, and the devil. He does not cease to have, as man, a human body and soul.

But as God, He has always ruled over all the universe, and sustains each star and atom at all times and places, and holds all things in their appointed harmony. For "in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Col. 1:16-17) He has never ceased to be the ruler of all things, who is likewise the Eternal Word, and "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world".

This is beautifully expressed -- better than I can say it in my own words -- in the Chalcedonian definition of 451 AD:[indent][indent]Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man,
consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;

of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,
and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin;

as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages,
but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary ...

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Scruffy Kid
Oct 4th 2010, 06:46 PM
For reference, I'll also repeat what I said in post #123:

I should like to return, for a moment, to the question asked by the OP.


Does God have a physical body?

What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? ...

Of course not.

God is without body, passions, or parts, as the Westminster Confession of 1646 puts it in paraphrasing the consensus of the Church (that is, of faithful Christians) through the ages, from their careful reading of the Scriptures.

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory. [Westminster confession, from Article 1]
God is the source of all being, all existence (as well as of all love, goodness, truth, and life, righteousness, judgment, and mercy).

The 7-day creation account makes this completely clear, in a variety of ways. God made all that is -- light and dark, heavens and earth, land and water, plant-life, sun, moon, and stars, birds and fish, animals on land, and human beings. (Gen. 1:1-2:3) Further, He made all these things, and the totality of them, as well, not as a carpenter makes a chair or desk from wood, but ex nihilo, out of nothing, by speaking them into existence, rather than relying on any prior substance or material.

This same point is made, in a different form, in the account of the call of Moses, in Ex. 3:1-3:20 ff. . There God reveals Himself to Moses speaking from a bush which burns but is not consumed, and revealing His name to Moses as YHWH -- roughly "I am" and "I am that I am". This revelation of the Divine Name is as central to the whole framework of Biblical truth as is the creation and the Exodus, and it clearly re-emphasizes that God is not like ordinary or extraordinary objects (sun, moon, stars, seas, animals): rather, these things come into being and pass away, but God (YHWH) is the inexhaustible source of his own being, and of all else that is. (This is revealed in the image of the bush, as well as in the Divine Name; and further reiterated in the mission of salvation He commissions Moses for, and in other elements of the larger Moses and Exodus narrative.)

In short, then, God reveals Himself to us in the basic concepts which animate the Bible, as well as in specific key passages, as completely self-sufficient, completely the source of His own being, and as beyond our conceptions of being, and as the Source and Ruler of all that is.

Furthermore, God's position (with respect to us, as His creatures) as Maker and Ruler of all does not simply mean that He filled up space (and time) with various objects which he called into being, like to how a human being may "make a home" by filling an empty house or apartment up with furniture, and so on. Just as God did not make the sun, moon, seas, and stars out of pre-existent matter which He found lying around (for that would be to suppose that God was not the sole creator, limited, and needing to rely upon that pre-existent matter) so similarly, God did not make these things (ex nihilo) placing them in an empty universe which He found lying around somewhere. That again would mean that God was limited, and relied on a framework of space and time of which He Himself was not the Creator. Rather, God made time and space (or space-time), and the laws of physics, and all that fills them, the galaxies and inter-galactic dust, the photons and the seas and the sun and the moon -- all these things, all in conjuction, all together -- as parts of His act of creation.

It would also be a misconception to think of God as creating a world -- a framework of space and time, and the earth and sky and seas and plants and animals, and us -- like a human artist or workman may make a picture, or sculpture, which continues to exist even when the artist walks away from it. The human craftsman is making an object out of matter (wood, stone, clay, canvas, paper, pigments) which is already there, that is, out of pre-existent matter (and in an already existing framework of time and space and physical laws). Because builders and artists like us -- creatures, whether human beings, or beavers, or robots, or martians (if there are any) or angels for that matter -- are merely reshaping matter that's already there, the painting or sculpture that we make, once properly fashioned, will then continue in existence without our further maintaining it, or even thinking about it. Once it's made, it's made; and the paintings and statues and bas reliefs and frescos Michaelangelo or Della Robia or Giotto made didn't cease to exist when those artists died, centuries ago. Why? Only because the matter out of which the statues and paintings are made continues in existence without those artists' attention to it; and it does because they didn't make that matter, they just reshaped it. The matter goes on existing (in the form of the statue they've made) when they have departed. But that happens only because the matter in our world continues, and does not decay into nothingness.

But the reason the world does fall into non-existence like that is because God sustains it in being. If God ceased to uphold us all in being -- the earth, the sun, the galaxy, or angels, or you and me -- we and these things would cease to exist. Not only originally, at the moment in time when it is first formed, but at every moment of existence, each thing continues in being not because of its own absolute power to go on existing, but because God upholds it in being. Thus, the universe is not like a sculpture, or like a clock which some worker makes, but which, once made, can continue ticking away on its own. Rather, God the Creator is the Creator of every moment, and every location, as well as the objects which inhabit these locations or move about. God is the Creator of everything at all times -- not just at some past moment of creation -- because anything other than God can exist only because He holds it in being at every moment of its existence.

The things we call "bodies", material or physical bodies, are things which have their being at specific points in space (and time), and whose existence is itself physical, that is, based upon its material constitution (that is, its material "constitutedness"). That is implied by describing them as "bodies". They are located here, or there, not everywhere. Thus bodies depend for their existence on the framework of time and space in which they are located. Their existence also depends upon the material which they are made of. They can be acted upon, and wrecked, or can become rancid and decay. In fact, things that have bodily existence are highly dependent upon the material conditions which surround them, and which are central to their existence. If animals don't eat, they die and decay; if plants lack sun and water, they do the same. If wood, or soil, or even granite is eroded, or undergoes chemical changes within itself, it too wastes away.

Not so God. God is the source of His own being -- the great I-AM, YHWH, I-am-that-I am -- and not dependent upon anything for His being.

For just this reason, He is the one who gives existence (as a free gift) to every creature, that is, to everything else that exists.

Unlike material objects which cannot pour forth energy without the energy being used up, God is like a burning bush which burns and yet is not consumed by its own flames, its outpouring of heat and light. Such a bush is inexhaustible: it can go on giving, and go on burning, without needing any source of further fuel or existence, and without getting used up. To say -- in the Biblical sense, as Jews and Christians understand the idea of Creator (as distinct from ancient Greeks and Romans, and so on) -- that God is the Creator is to say that God needs nothing from all He has created -- for He is its inexhaustible source! (The creation, however, constantly needs its Creator!) As Psalm 50 notes, in a speech to the faithful from God (50:7), "Every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills" (50:10), and "if [He] were hungry [He] would not ask us" for food (50:12)! Therefore, our relationship to Him is not one of supplying Him with what He needs, but of calling upon Him, who loves us, to supply our needs (50:13-15). As Paul explains to the Athenians, in Acts 17:24-28

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And He made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after Him and find Him. Yet He is not far from each one of us,for "In Him we live and move and have our being"; as even some of your poets have said, "For we are indeed His offspring."

For just these reasons, God does not "have a body" in the sense that the OP asked about.

Bodies are located here, or there, with some powers and not others, moving through time, changeable.
God, instead, is "the high and lofty one Who inhabits eternity, Whose name is holy" (Is. 57:15).
He dwells not in the realm of created things, though He is near them, sustaining them in being (else they would not exist).
Rrather, Scripture tells us, He must "stoop [even] to behold", created things.
He must condescend greatly, coming down to our level, even to look upon, "the heavens"
to say nothing of "the earth" as well (Ps. 113).
His dwelling place is not in the world or worlds that He has made, but in the fullness of His own glory and His own presence.

God is not located on earth, nor in the stratosphere, nor spread out throughout the universe like peanut butter spread on toast, but is active by His sustaining work at every point of the universe. He keeps all the quarks obedient to the laws of quantum mechanics, and the photons propagating according to the laws of electromagnetic radiation. He is not like some little transparent dwarf, or unseen mechanic, running about frantically from one atom to the next, and one galaxy to the next, and keeping them in tune with busy hands, or with an inventive mind coming up with the right formula for their orbits just in time. Rather, all things that exist (including time, space, angels, us, and laws of physics, as well as cans of soup and sheep on the hillside) can exist only because, continually, He holds them all in being. And He dwells not in our universe at all, but in the fullness of His own eternal presence, calmly and effortlessly sustaining in being all else that is, simply by his choosing that it shall be so, or (to put it a different way) by commanding that it shall be so just as the Bible, in Genesis 1 and elsewhere, clearly indicates.

Firstfruits
Oct 4th 2010, 06:55 PM
According to the following Jesus returned to what he was before.

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

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

God bless!

Firstfruits

Br. Barnabas
Oct 4th 2010, 06:59 PM
It might help if the OP defines the term God for all of us, that we might better answer the question.

For me when one says God, that means the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And as I mentioned before on the 1st page, the Father is spirit and thus does not have a physical body. The Son since the incarnation does have a physical body even though now it is a resurrection body which may or may not have a different make up then our present physical bodies, the fact still remains that it was a physical body that the disciples touched. The Holy Spirit, being a spirit does not have a physical body.

So the answer to the question: does God have a physical body? Is yes and no. Because of the vague term "God" used in the question the answer must be yes. If the OP or anyone would like to re-word the question to does the Father or the Holy Spirit, or even the Son have a physical body then the answer will change. And the explaination can change as well. But as the question stands the answer must be yes and no.

percho
Oct 4th 2010, 08:54 PM
With regards to the following why does it not apply to us?

1 Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

God bless!

Firstfruits

Is it that we are presently living souls but after the return of Christ we will be quickened spirits? 1 Cor 15:45,49

For something to be quickened does it have to first die?

Firstfruits
Oct 4th 2010, 09:21 PM
Is it that we are presently living souls but after the return of Christ we will be quickened spirits? 1 Cor 15:45,49

For something to be quickened does it have to first die?

1 Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

God bless!

Firstfruits

Sirus
Oct 4th 2010, 11:09 PM
Who/what needed to be reconciled if not man and God (i.e. their relationship)?Can you give scripture that shows me a change in Adam's relationship with God? I mean, reconciliation is accomplished through sacrifice and blood, right? God talks to Cain the same way He did to Adam. Did He not continue with Adam? How do you know? I don't know of any scripture that says. I know we can make a lot of assumptions through theological lenses with much later examples as things progressed and changed, but I thought we were talking about Adam and the little text we do have.

Sirus
Oct 4th 2010, 11:23 PM
That is what I am asking also, because before Jesus came from God he was as God is, spirit. If he remained flesh he would be restricted with what he could do.

FirstfruitsRestricted? Even before He died He knew thoughts and where people were etc... After He was resurrected I don't see any restrictions. If you do, where?

Sirus
Oct 4th 2010, 11:33 PM
When we die and are resurrected we have to be changed so that we can inherit/live in heaven.He did that.


Jesus, the word was God and put on flesh in order to fulfil the will of God, his plan of salvation.Yes, but don't say it like He didn't already have a body because you don't have any scripture that says He didn't.


Now that Jesus has returned home to heaven, why would he not return to how he was before he came?Why would He? Maybe He did? Maybe not yet and He will after He has put down all rule and authority as the man Christ Jesus and turns the kingdom over to the Father? We don't know. That's my point. People keep saying He didn't have a body before and doesn't have one now and they have absolutely 0 scripture -as in- not_one_verse. It's not amazing people would think these things because of theological bent, but it is amazing they continue after being challenged to produce a verse of scripture and can't.

Sirus
Oct 4th 2010, 11:34 PM
According to the following Jesus returned to what he was before.

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

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

God bless!

FirstfruitsYes, but you still don't know what that was, having no scripture.

Sirus
Oct 4th 2010, 11:37 PM
It might help if the OP defines the term God for all of us, that we might better answer the question.I thought they did because they said "as the Mormons believe". That tells me they are talking about the Father. Correct me if I am wrong.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 5th 2010, 01:36 AM
I thought they did because they said "as the Mormons believe". That tells me they are talking about the Father. Correct me if I am wrong.

Wilder asked if God has a body "like the Mormons believe?" As far as I know the Mormons do believe that Jesus did have body. The term God when asking something like this is too vague because orthodox Christianity believes in the Triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Saying "God" does not automatticaly equal the Father. Saying God in the orthodox Christian setting equals the Triune God.

Sirus
Oct 5th 2010, 02:47 AM
You missed it. Forget that Jesus has a body. We all know that. That was not the question. Someone correct me if I am wrong but Mormons believe the Father has a body. So asking 'does God have a body like Mormons believe' is obviously asking about the Father since the Son most definately does. How is that vague? Would they be asking if the Spirit has a body? I don't think so.

LookingUp
Oct 5th 2010, 05:01 AM
...Accordingly, the human nature of Christ Jesus suffered death, "and being raised from the dead dies no more." As a human being, fully human, with a human soul and body, and subject to human limitations and weaknesses, Jesus suffered and died for us, and rose from the dead. The resurrected body bears the scars of the crucifixion, and ascends into heaven triumphantly bearing these wounds by which He has overcome sin, hell, death, and the devil. He does not cease to have, as man, a human body and soul...Nice post Scruffy. Your reminder that Christ "dies no more" is very meaningful to this discussion. "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him” (Rom. 6:8-9). If Christ was now a spirit or strictly a spiritual being (i.e. no longer “a man”), this promise that He will never die again wouldn’t have the same effect as it would if He were still a man.

Firstfruits
Oct 5th 2010, 07:39 AM
He did that.

Yes, but don't say it like He didn't already have a body because you don't have any scripture that says He didn't.

Why would He? Maybe He did? Maybe not yet and He will after He has put down all rule and authority as the man Christ Jesus and turns the kingdom over to the Father? We don't know. That's my point. People keep saying He didn't have a body before and doesn't have one now and they have absolutely 0 scripture -as in- not_one_verse. It's not amazing people would think these things because of theological bent, but it is amazing they continue after being challenged to produce a verse of scripture and can't.

The scriptures say that before he came and put on flesh he was as God is, Spirit.

The glory of the flesh is not the same glory of the celestial.

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

1 Cor 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Firstfruits

divaD
Oct 5th 2010, 03:29 PM
The scriptures say that before he came and put on flesh he was as God is, Spirit.

The glory of the flesh is not the same glory of the celestial.

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

1 Cor 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Firstfruits


1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body

Notice that it says it's raised a spiritual body. That means it has substance. And if that substance consists of flesh and bones, I don't see the problem. It states flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God. Doesn't say anything about fleash and bones can't. Of course, I've already brought that up. Here's a question for you. How was it that the Father allowed Christ back into heaven? Obviously He would have arrived in flesh and bones, would He have not? If not, then do you have Scriptures that show His flesh and bone body was transformed into something else, before being allowed back into heaven?

Sirus
Oct 6th 2010, 12:15 AM
The scriptures say that before he came and put on flesh he was as God is, Spirit.Where? Jesus, as God, in flesh and blood said God is spirit.


The glory of the flesh is not the same glory of the celestial.

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

1 Cor 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.What does this prove? You aren't slapping these two together to prove your first statement are you? Again, Jn 17:5 doesn't say whether or not He had a body and tell us specificaly what that glory was. If you say it is described in 1 Cor 15:40 you are saying He did indeed have a body. You are not helping your argument at all Ff.

Sirus
Oct 6th 2010, 12:23 AM
Who/what needed to be reconciled if not man and God (i.e. their relationship)?Can you give scripture that shows me a change in Adam's relationship with God? I mean, reconciliation is accomplished through sacrifice and blood, right? God talks to Cain the same way He did to Adam. Did He not continue with Adam? How do you know? I don't know of any scripture that says. I know we can make a lot of assumptions through theological lenses with much later examples as things progressed and changed, but I thought we were talking about Adam and the little text we do have.I guess I should have explained this.....
I don't see a restoration do you? I see Jesus doing much more. Jesus accomplished what Adam never did. Our inheritance is nothing like what Adam had. So I don't understand the mindset that Jesus restores what Adam lost. Not even in relationship. God created Adam, hung out a little, named the animals, laid down a few commandments, then left. Doesn't sound at all like what we have now and forever.

LookingUp
Oct 6th 2010, 04:42 AM
Can you give scripture that shows me a change in Adam's relationship with God? I mean, reconciliation is accomplished through sacrifice and blood, right? God talks to Cain the same way He did to Adam. Did He not continue with Adam? How do you know? I don't know of any scripture that says. I know we can make a lot of assumptions through theological lenses with much later examples as things progressed and changed, but I thought we were talking about Adam and the little text we do have.Hey Sirus. I’m not quite sure I’m following what you’re trying to get at, so bear with me. You may have an interesting point that I’m not yet seeing.

I’m not saying God stopped interacting with anyone in particular. Actually, I always assumed God continued to interact with Adam in some way (if not the same way) after He was removed from the garden. In my mind, I always pictured “spiritual separation” as a “spiritually relational separation,” not a physical separation (i.e. God stopped talking to Adam).


I guess I should have explained this.....
I don't see a restoration do you? I see Jesus doing much more. Jesus accomplished what Adam never did. Our inheritance is nothing like what Adam had. So I don't understand the mindset that Jesus restores what Adam lost. Not even in relationship. God created Adam, hung out a little, named the animals, laid down a few commandments, then left. Doesn't sound at all like what we have now and forever.This is how I see it (at this time). When Adam and Eve chose to obey another master over their original Master, they allowed themselves and all their descendants after them to become slaves to him (i.e. slaves to Satan/sin). In the spiritual realm, this “transaction” made it necessary for them to be redeemed/ransomed/rescued by One who had the power to do so.

I do see a restoration beginning with the ministry of Christ. Jesus believed that Satan was “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), so much so that Satan had the authority to hand over rulership of “all the kingdoms of the world” to whomever he pleased (Luke 4:5-6). We know that God is the Lord over all creation, but Satan is apparently the ruling lord of the earth. John believed the entire world was under the power of Satan (1 John 5:19), and Paul called him the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4) and the ruler of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2). Pretty impressive stuff. When I look carefully at the ministry of Jesus, I see our King slowly (but surely) taking back ownership of His empire (i.e. restoration). Each of our Lord’s healings and deliverances was another blow to Satan’s oppression. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil (Acts 10:38). He came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), drive out the ruler of this world (John 12:31), and render powerless the devil who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Why? In order to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). Jesus came to set the slaves, the captives, free. We can “escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:26) through faith in Christ. We are all free to choose the One who now, through His victory, has rights to us. God has made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and He has been raised to a position of divine power at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33). But He is not like the master of our forefather, Adam; He allows us to choose who we will bind ourselves to. Christ bought the rights to ALL (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Tim. 4:10), even unbelievers (2 Peter 2:1). Through faith in Him (when the actual "purchase transaction" occurs), we choose to be rescued from the power of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of His Son (Col. 1:12-13). Jesus came to establish a new reign that would ultimately put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25), and we are to reign with him (2 Tim. 2:15; Rev. 5:10). All this speaks “restoration” to me.

Firstfruits
Oct 6th 2010, 08:40 AM
Where? Jesus, as God, in flesh and blood said God is spirit.

What does this prove? You aren't slapping these two together to prove your first statement are you? Again, Jn 17:5 doesn't say whether or not He had a body and tell us specificaly what that glory was. If you say it is described in 1 Cor 15:40 you are saying He did indeed have a body. You are not helping your argument at all Ff.

Jesus is the word. Jesus was God.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God was made flesh.

Firstfruits

Sirus
Oct 7th 2010, 04:22 AM
Hey Sirus. I’m not quite sure I’m following what you’re trying to get at, so bear with me. You may have an interesting point that I’m not yet seeing.

I’m not saying God stopped interacting with anyone in particular. Actually, I always assumed God continued to interact with Adam in some way (if not the same way) after He was removed from the garden. In my mind, I always pictured “spiritual separation” as a “spiritually relational separation,” not a physical separation (i.e. God stopped talking to Adam).Right. We are more on the same page than I thought. But how does this “spiritually relational separation,” play out? All we can do is speculate, right? If so, that's my point. We aren't told what the relationship entailed before or after to be able to compare.


This is how I see it (at this time). When Adam and Eve chose to obey another master over their original Master, they allowed themselves and all their descendants after them to become slaves to him (i.e. slaves to Satan/sin). In the spiritual realm, this “transaction” made it necessary for them to be redeemed/ransomed/rescued by One who had the power to do so.

I do see a restoration beginning with the ministry of Christ. Jesus believed that Satan was “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), so much so that Satan had the authority to hand over rulership of “all the kingdoms of the world” to whomever he pleased (Luke 4:5-6). We know that God is the Lord over all creation, but Satan is apparently the ruling lord of the earth. John believed the entire world was under the power of Satan (1 John 5:19), and Paul called him the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4) and the ruler of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2). Pretty impressive stuff. When I look carefully at the ministry of Jesus, I see our King slowly (but surely) taking back ownership of His empire (i.e. restoration). Each of our Lord’s healings and deliverances was another blow to Satan’s oppression. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil (Acts 10:38). He came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), drive out the ruler of this world (John 12:31), and render powerless the devil who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Why? In order to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). Jesus came to set the slaves, the captives, free. We can “escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:26) through faith in Christ. We are all free to choose the One who now, through His victory, has rights to us. God has made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and He has been raised to a position of divine power at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33). But He is not like the master of our forefather, Adam; He allows us to choose who we will bind ourselves to. Christ bought the rights to ALL (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Tim. 4:10), even unbelievers (2 Peter 2:1). Through faith in Him (when the actual "purchase transaction" occurs), we choose to be rescued from the power of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of His Son (Col. 1:12-13). Jesus came to establish a new reign that would ultimately put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25), and we are to reign with him (2 Tim. 2:15; Rev. 5:10). All this speaks “restoration” to me.Thanks for the explanation.

I don't believe we are born with a sin nature. Adam wasn't. Nothing to restore here. I believe sin nature is something we acquire for ourselves over a lifetime of following the natural course of this world, the lust of the flesh, and the god and spirit of this world. As you said, we "become slaves", we are not born slaves. In the sense of a designation only we are born slaves/sinners because it is certain all will sin and follow the natural course of this world. The only thing I see in the text that Adam had on occasion and we don't is God's presence and verbal instruction. Is it the same we have as born again believers? Seems different to me in several ways, so how can this be a restoration? Seems glorification in the future that has never occurred.

Both are created mortal/earthy. Nothing to restore here.
Jesus was made spiritual. This is not restoration of the earthy but glorification of the earthy into the heavenly.

Adam was given dominion. Told to guard, protect, keep, subdue. He never accomplished this. Jesus did. Jesus lived righteous Adam did not. So, while Jesus restored dominion to man, the new reign using that dominion is not part of the restoration, but is in fact something new, having never occurred. BTW; Jesus did not slowly take back dominion throughout His ministry. He did so through the course of His life. After 30 years of loving righteousness and hating iniquity He received the Spirit in fullness and was anointed and said all power in heaven and earth was His. That the Father gave all judgment to Him because He is the Son of man -a man. Again, something Adam never had. This was much more than a restoration. This was what God intended for Adam that Adam never acquired.

In short, basically we attribute a lot of things to Adam he never had. At least not as far as we can tell in the text.
We say a lot of things about 'relationship' when the text says next to nothing.

Also, where does it say Adam lost dominion? God later gave it to Noah, and it never says it was taken from him either. Could that be why Satan has dominion? He was once given it -Lucifer? Gifts and calling w/o repentance?

Sirus
Oct 7th 2010, 04:43 AM
Jesus is the word. Jesus was God.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God was made flesh.

FirstfruitsTrue, true!
Now, where does it say He did not have a body before He was made flesh?
Is it so hard to admit scripture does not say?

Firstfruits
Oct 7th 2010, 07:47 AM
True, true!
Now, where does it say He did not have a body before He was made flesh?
Is it so hard to admit scripture does not say?

According to the following Jesus had a celestial/heavenly body, since he came from heaven to earth and was made flesh.

1 Cor 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

He put off the heavenly body and put on the terrestrial.

Jn 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Firstfruits

Sirus
Oct 7th 2010, 11:55 PM
Well Ff, no one has disputed that. Did you think someone was? These do not say whether He did or did not have a body before He became a man. Strangely, here you say here He did in fact have a body before He became a man. I thought you said He didn't have a body before He became a man. I think you need to do some clarifying.

LookingUp
Oct 8th 2010, 02:35 AM
Well Ff, no one has disputed that. Did you think someone was? These do not say whether He did or did not have a body before He became a man. Strangely, here you say here He did in fact have a body before He became a man. I thought you said He didn't have a body before He became a man. I think you need to do some clarifying.I think what FF is saying is that because Scripture says the Word "became" flesh or "was made" flesh, He was previously not flesh. ??

Sirus, what is your point about the Word having a "body" before He became flesh? Are you just trying to show that we don't know what the Word was before He became flesh? If so, I think I'd have to agree with you. Although, "God is spirit," Christ, who is flesh (now resurrected flesh) is God. So, I don't see a problem with the Word having some king of a "body" (i.e. form) before He was made flesh.

Sirus
Oct 8th 2010, 02:53 AM
Yes, that's my point. Scripture does not tell us either way. There's nothing wrong with thinking He (could have) had a body before He was made flesh. He was God when He was flesh, so certainly He is now being spiritual/heavenly. Could have been the case before He became flesh. We don't know.

crossnote
Oct 8th 2010, 03:00 AM
I am not reading thru 169 or so posts, so here is my 2⌐cents.

He does now...since the Incarnation. ╒╘╙╒

LookingUp
Oct 8th 2010, 05:06 AM
Right. We are more on the same page than I thought. But how does this “spiritually relational separation,” play out? All we can do is speculate, right? If so, that's my point. We aren't told what the relationship entailed before or after to be able to compare.How does it play out? Not exactly sure. But something so significant took place that it caused Adam and Eve to be removed from the Garden and the Tree of Life. It caused a number of curses to come upon them. And it made it necessary that a Redeemer come and offer up His life. They needed a Redeemer. Why? What/whom did they need to be redeemed from? Scripture points to the captivity of Satan and his rule. Physically, they could go right on talking and praying to God if they chose to. But on some spiritual level, they became captives of Satan. I don’t know what that spiritual captivity “looked like” but I know that it needed a Redeemer. It seems that no matter what they did “physically” (i.e. obey God), they had no choice about their “spiritual captivity.” If they had the power to release themselves through obedience to God, then why did they need a Redeemer?

This means that even today, we do not have the power to set ourselves free through some kind of obedience. It’s a bit different today, though, because all are already “spiritually” free, but they just don’t know it. Today, no one is “rightfully” held by Satan in “spiritual captivity”—Christ came to set the captives free. Some don’t know it yet (the good news hasn’t reached them) and some refuse to believe it (they choose to be bound to their forefather’s master, Satan). Jesus released them, if only they believed it was true. He opened the gates, but we have to walk through them. He releases us not based on our obedience (as if our flawed obedience had the power to free us from Satan’s captivity) but on our faith in Him and belief in His victory.


Thanks for the explanation.

I don't believe we are born with a sin nature. Adam wasn't. Nothing to restore here. I believe sin nature is something we acquire for ourselves over a lifetime of following the natural course of this world, the lust of the flesh, and the god and spirit of this world.This is my understanding of Scripture as well.


As you said, we "become slaves", we are not born slaves. In the sense of a designation only we are born slaves/sinners because it is certain all will sin and follow the natural course of this world.I don’t think we were/are born slaves in that we are born with a “genetic defect” that makes us that way. Ultimately, we are salves of the one we obey (Rom. 6:16). But this freedom of choice to whom we bind ourselves does not lighten the truth that Christ Jesus came to render powerless the devil who HAD the power of death in order to FREE those who were held in slavery by the fear of death (Heb. 2:14-15). The devil no longer has the power of death. We both agree Jesus came to set the slaves/captives free, but not all the slaves WANT to be set free.

It’s like when a King conquers a kingdom and it takes months and months for the news to reach the remote parts of the conquered kingdom. The people think they’re still under the oppression of the previous ruler, but they just need the news to be brought to them that they have been set free. And since the news may come faster than the kind of results they expect from this new reign, they may continue to act like slaves to the previous ruler and live a life of defeat rather than a life of victory. That’s what I feel like is going on now. The reality is yet to come. Today, we live knowing that, in principle, the kingdom has come but we must wait patiently for the reality to catch up to it.


The only thing I see in the text that Adam had on occasion and we don't is God's presence and verbal instruction. Is it the same we have as born again believers? Seems different to me in several ways, so how can this be a restoration?Christ restored and is restoring all creation to the rightful owner (1 Cor. 15:20-28).


Seems glorification in the future that has never occurred.I don’t understand this statement.


Both are created mortal/earthy. Nothing to restore here.
Jesus was made spiritual. This is not restoration of the earthy but glorification of the earthy into the heavenly.

Adam was given dominion. Told to guard, protect, keep, subdue. He never accomplished this. Jesus did. Jesus lived righteous Adam did not. So, while Jesus restored dominion to man, the new reign using that dominion is not part of the restoration, but is in fact something new, having never occurred.Yes, the new reign of man does not seem like the old.


BTW; Jesus did not slowly take back dominion throughout His ministry. He did so through the course of His life.Yes, Amen! I do believe that.


After 30 years of loving righteousness and hating iniquity He received the Spirit in fullness and was anointed and said all power in heaven and earth was His. That the Father gave all judgment to Him because He is the Son of man -a man. Again, something Adam never had. This was much more than a restoration. This was what God intended for Adam that Adam never acquired.

In short, basically we attribute a lot of things to Adam he never had. At least not as far as we can tell in the text.
We say a lot of things about 'relationship' when the text says next to nothing.


Also, where does it say Adam lost dominion? God later gave it to Noah, and it never says it was taken from him either. Could that be why Satan has dominion? He was once given it -Lucifer? Gifts and calling w/o repentance?Not sure.

Firstfruits
Oct 8th 2010, 10:01 AM
Well Ff, no one has disputed that. Did you think someone was? These do not say whether He did or did not have a body before He became a man. Strangely, here you say here He did in fact have a body before He became a man. I thought you said He didn't have a body before He became a man. I think you need to do some clarifying.

He did not have flesh before he became a man. He was as God is with a heavenly/celestial body.

Firstfruits

Scruffy Kid
Oct 8th 2010, 10:14 AM
Of course, God the Son, the Eternal Word, chose to enter history as a human being, fully human, like us in all things except for sin.
Christ Jesus, conceived (I suppose) in Nazereth, through the power of the Holy Spirit, from the virgin Mary, and born in Bethlehem, was arrested, condemned, physically abused, and killed in Jerusalem; but rose from the dead (after visiting the souls of those in prison) and after spending 40 days with the disciples ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of God the Father. And He shall come again to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

In that sense, and that sense only, God (God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ) has a body.
And of course, there is also a sense in which the Church is the body of Christ.

Apart from that however, God does not have a body -- not a physical nor celestial.
The Divine nature does not "have a body" because all the universe could not contain God,
and because God existed prior to His creation of the universe, and of space and time,
and because bodies are located in space and time and limited, and exist as objects among other objects,
and none of those things is, or could be, true of God in His Divine Nature.

The passage about bodies celestial and terrestrial is not talking about God, but about the resurrection of the dead.

Sirus
Oct 9th 2010, 12:26 AM
Christ restored and is restoring all creation to the rightful owner (1 Cor. 15:20-28).I agree with what you said before this, and I agree with this. :thumbsup:

We were talking about relational restoration though. Adam was righteous because he was innocent, not because he believed God. I'm not talking about in the end, but in the Genesis account. IOW, in his experience, as we see it in Genesis, he had no experience to start with and when the opportunity came to be righteous through an experience he failed. So I don't see how we can say Jesus restores that relationship. What relationship? We are all innocent at birth with no experience. Nothing needs to be restored here. If you mean Jesus restores our right standing with God, I'll have to remind you man was called righteous, and reconciliation was made by blood, before Christ.

So concerning relationship, what did Adam have and lose, that Christ restored?


I don’t understand this statement.Sorry. Bad wording.

It seems like the glorification in the future is something that has never occurred.

Sirus
Oct 9th 2010, 12:31 AM
He did not have flesh before he became a man. He was as God is with a heavenly/celestial body.

FirstfruitsNow you say God, not just Christ, has a body? No? Then what are you saying? Give us more than a one-liner please....and what do you mean by "God". I mean, you just said "God is ....a heavenly/celestial body.". Is that because Christ has a body? Then I agree. Then you also agree Christ also could have had a body before He became flesh. No one has said He had dying, decaying, corruptible, mortal flesh before He became a man. That's absurd. What is your point?

Sirus
Oct 9th 2010, 12:34 AM
Of course, God the Son, the Eternal Word, chose to enter history as a human being, fully human, like us in all things except for sin.
Christ Jesus, conceived (I suppose) in Nazereth, through the power of the Holy Spirit, from the virgin Mary, and born in Bethlehem, was arrested, condemned, physically abused, and killed in Jerusalem; but rose from the dead (after visiting the souls of those in prison) and after spending 40 days with the disciples ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of God the Father. And He shall come again to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

In that sense, and that sense only, God (God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ) has a body.
And of course, there is also a sense in which the Church is the body of Christ.

Apart from that however, God does not have a body -- not a physical nor celestial.
The Divine nature does not "have a body" because all the universe could not contain God,
and because God existed prior to His creation of the universe, and of space and time,
and because bodies are located in space and time and limited, and exist as objects among other objects,
and none of those things is, or could be, true of God in His Divine Nature.

The passage about bodies celestial and terrestrial is not talking about God, but about the resurrection of the dead.:thumbsup: agreed :thumbsup:

Still doesn't mean He could not have had a body before He became corruptible flesh. There's nothing you said here and nothing in all of Scripture that says otherwise.

Firstfruits
Oct 9th 2010, 11:18 AM
Now you say God, not just Christ, has a body? No? Then what are you saying? Give us more than a one-liner please....and what do you mean by "God". I mean, you just said "God is ....a heavenly/celestial body.". Is that because Christ has a body? Then I agree. Then you also agree Christ also could have had a body before He became flesh. No one has said He had dying, decaying, corruptible, mortal flesh before He became a man. That's absurd. What is your point?

Those in heaven have spiritual bodies, when Jesus came to earth he put off his spritual body and put on an earthly body. Jesus has retuirned to heaven to be with God the father as he was before, with a celestial/heavenly body. When Jesus returns we shall be as he is. Being from heaven we shall also receive heavenly bodies.

God bless!

firstfruits

Sirus
Oct 9th 2010, 04:00 PM
Agreed. That's what has been said throughout the thread. Thanks.

Firstfruits
Oct 9th 2010, 04:21 PM
Agreed. That's what has been said throughout the thread. Thanks.

You are welcome,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

LookingUp
Oct 10th 2010, 04:57 PM
I agree with what you said before this, and I agree with this. :thumbsup:

We were talking about relational restoration though. Adam was righteous because he was innocent, not because he believed God.Right.


I'm not talking about in the end, but in the Genesis account. IOW, in his experience, as we see it in Genesis, he had no experience to start with and when the opportunity came to be righteous through an experience he failed. So I don't see how we can say Jesus restores that relationship. What relationship?I believe it was a master/servant relationship that was lost. Adam's choice to rebel caused him to brought under the dominion of Satan. The way I see it is that Satan "stole" something that belonged to God through deceit. God chose not to forcefully take mankind back. He got it back through sacrifical love.


We are all innocent at birth with no experience.True. But before Christ, Satan had the power of death and all of Adam's descendants were born into captivity.


Nothing needs to be restored here.Right. God has already, in principle, taken back ownership of mankind through Christ.


If you mean Jesus restores our right standing with God, I'll have to remind you man was called righteous, and reconciliation was made by blood, before Christ.

So concerning relationship, what did Adam have and lose, that Christ restored?Did the above answer this?


Sorry. Bad wording.

It seems like the glorification in the future is something that has never occurred.I agree.

Sirus
Oct 10th 2010, 09:50 PM
I believe it was a master/servant relationship that was lost.That's my point. Where was it ever established? It was freely offered, but never established. When the opportunity came to establish it Adam chose sin over God. You are a servant to whom you obey. No one is automatically a servant to either. Adam did not obey God. That relationship was never established. Did Adam all of a sudden become a slave to sin? Where's that verse?


Adam's choice to rebel caused him to brought under the dominion of Satan. The way I see it is that Satan "stole" something that belonged to God through deceit. God chose not to forcefully take mankind back. He got it back through sacrifical love.Well, as I pointed out earlier, dominion was never taken from Adam. We now had two agents with dominion on the earth. Satan did not steal anything that belonged to God because it never belonged to God. Do you really think Satan stole from God? It was Adam's choice, not Satan's. Adam did not choose God. He chose to sin.


True. But before Christ, Satan had the power of death and all of Adam's descendants were born into captivity.Captive to physical death because there is no tree of life is not captive to sin. Man chooses to sin. He is not forced by Satan to sin. Satan no longer has the power of physical death yet all still sin and physically die. This power was only in the sense of removal from the garden and tree of life. Once the redeemer came with the promise of eternal life through Him and not a tree, that power was destroyed.

LookingUp
Oct 11th 2010, 12:50 AM
That's my point. Where was it ever established? It was freely offered, but never established. When the opportunity came to establish it Adam chose sin over God. You are a servant to whom you obey. No one is automatically a servant to either. Adam did not obey God. That relationship was never established. Did Adam all of a sudden become a slave to sin? Where's that verse?There was a period of time Adam and Eve chose to obey God and not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This established the servant/Master relationship. When they chose to sin, they became slaves to sin.


Well, as I pointed out earlier, dominion was never taken from Adam. We now had two agents with dominion on the earth.Why do you say there were two agents with dominion? Do you mean AFTER Adam was removed from the garden or before? I don’t know that Satan’s dominion was given to him by God, as it was Adam. Where’s that? Satan has deceptively taken control.


Satan did not steal anything that belonged to God because it never belonged to God. Do you really think Satan stole from God? It was Adam's choice, not Satan's. Adam did not choose God. He chose to sin.So, you’re having a hard time figuring out what Adam lost, other than access to the Tree of Life, right? Well…I have to think about this. I guess I thought that because of Adam’s choice, mankind had been “sold into slavery” in a sense. I had thought that at the cross God defeated the devil through Christ and set the captives free from this slavery. I suppose the main reason I thought mankind had been “sold into slavery” is because we are told Jesus gave his life as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6) and that we were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20). So, I figured mankind needed to be “bought back” from Satan. Also because it is Satan who is the ruler of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), oppresses people (Acts 10:38), and holds people captive to do his will (2 Tim. 2:26).


Captive to physical death because there is no tree of life is not captive to sin.So, you are thinking that mankind needed to be “bought back” from physical death itself? That physical death held mankind in bondage? Hmmm...it is written that Christ redeemed us from the curse (death?) of the law (Gal. 3:13). Isn't "redeemed" very closely related to "ransom"?


Man chooses to sin. He is not forced by Satan to sin. Satan no longer has the power of physical death yet all still sin and physically die. This power was only in the sense of removal from the garden and tree of life. Once the redeemer came with the promise of eternal life through Him and not a tree, that power was destroyed.So…the power the devil had over physical death has been removed.

But we are told that people are slaves to sin and need to be freed from this slavery (Jn. 8:32-34), held in bondage by sin (Rom. 3:9; 6:6-12; 7:7-20, 23, 25), and in the snare of the devil and held captive to do his will (2 Tim. 2:26).

So, would you say this captivity is different than the captivity of physical death mankind was freed from? That abiding in Christ frees you from spiritual bondage (i.e. captivity to sin during this life), and that faith in Christ frees you from physical bondage (captivity to death)?

BTW, what's your take on Rom. 5:19?

Sirus
Oct 11th 2010, 04:24 AM
There was a period of time Adam and Eve chose to obey God and not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.Where might I read about this? If you had to guess, which you'd have to do, was it 1 day? 2? 10? 100 years? 1000? This is yet another one of those assumptions that has become accepted as common knowledge in Christianity that has zero scriptural support.


Why do you say there were two agents with dominion? Do you mean AFTER Adam was removed from the garden or before?Both. As I said earlier, there's no indication dominion was taken from Adam.


I don’t know that Satan’s dominion was given to him by God, as it was Adam. Where’s that? Satan has deceptively taken control.As I said earlier (was it another thread or something?), Lucifer was in Eden, the garden of God, as the anointed cherub with brightness that covereth (supreme potentate). If you are one that does not think Lucifer is Satan, then this won't matter to you.


So, you’re having a hard time figuring out what Adam lost, other than access to the Tree of Life, right?Well, I know what the text says. I'm having a hard time figuring out how mainstream Christianity has come to its conclusions w/o the text.


Well…I have to think about this. I guess I thought that because of Adam’s choice, mankind had been “sold into slavery” in a sense.In a sense? Yes, but defining that sense has been the subject of debate every since.


I had thought that at the cross God defeated the devil through Christ and set the captives free from this slavery. I suppose the main reason I thought mankind had been “sold into slavery” is because we are told Jesus gave his life as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6) and that we were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20). So, I figured mankind needed to be “bought back” from Satan.The cross defeated the devil because Adam never did. That's the point! Lucifer sinned and God needed someone to exercise dominion and subdue him in righteousness. Adam failed. Jesus did not.


Also because it is Satan who is the ruler of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), oppresses people (Acts 10:38), and holds people captive to do his will (2 Tim. 2:26).Why do you just ask if God gave him his authority? I thought scripture says all principality and power came from Him? Again, "Do you really think Satan stole from God?".


So, you are thinking that mankind needed to be “bought back” from physical death itself? That physical death held mankind in bondage? Hmmm...it is written that Christ redeemed us from the curse (death?) of the law (Gal. 3:13). Isn't "redeemed" very closely related to "ransom"?I don't understand what you are asking.


So…the power the devil had over physical death has been removed.

But we are told that people are slaves to sin and need to be freed from this slavery (Jn. 8:32-34), held in bondage by sin (Rom. 3:9; 6:6-12; 7:7-20, 23, 25), and in the snare of the devil and held captive to do his will (2 Tim. 2:26).

So, would you say this captivity is different than the captivity of physical death mankind was freed from?Yes it's different, but again, what scripture says Adam was a slave to sin? What scripture says man is born a slave to sin? Joh 8:34 and some of the others is 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'. You can't apply what happens to most to all. All have sin, but not all are servants of sin. Man has been and can be righteous. We have many such examples in scripture before Christ.


That abiding in Christ frees you from spiritual bondage (i.e. captivity to sin during this life), and that faith in Christ frees you from physical bondage (captivity to death)?This has more than one application. All have sin so all need redemption.


BTW, what's your take on Rom. 5:19?Made in this verse means designate/ordain. Since Adam did not remain sinless and grow in the grace and knowledge of God to be glorified as Christ did, he and his descendants remained in this corruptible mortal state in the flesh in this carnal world. Sin is the result.

LookingUp
Oct 11th 2010, 05:27 AM
Where might I read about this? If you had to guess, which you'd have to do, was it 1 day? 2? 10? 100 years? 1000? This is yet another one of those assumptions that has become accepted as common knowledge in Christianity that has zero scriptural support.It doesn’t matter what day. Some amount of time elapsed (it doesn't matter how much) from Gen. 2:17 when Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree until the time Eve was deceived in the Garden by the serpent in Gen. 3:1. Adam was not with her, yet she knew about the command. That means that there was a period of time that Adam refrained from eating from the tree where the servant/Master relationship was established.


Both. As I said earlier, there's no indication dominion was taken from Adam.

As I said earlier (was it another thread or something?), Lucifer was in Eden, the garden of God, as the anointed cherub with brightness that covereth (supreme potentate). If you are one that does not think Lucifer is Satan, then this won't matter to you.Yeah, not sure about that. I haven't looked into that.


Well, I know what the text says. I'm having a hard time figuring out how mainstream Christianity has come to its conclusions w/o the text.

In a sense? Yes, but defining that sense has been the subject of debate every since.True.


The cross defeated the devil because Adam never did. That's the point! Lucifer sinned and God needed someone to exercise dominion and subdue him in righteousness. Adam failed. Jesus did not.OK…I’m giving this some consideration. Are there any other Scriptures that lead you to believe God intended for Adam to subdue the devil? That it wasn’t only about obeying God’s command; it was what that obedience led to: subduing Satan. Actually, this is making some sense. I’m intrigued. Through Christ, we now can subdue Satan.

Did you get this idea from someone (i.e. book) or did this come to you through your own personal study time?


Why do you just ask if God gave him his authority? I thought scripture says all principality and power came from Him?Satan is obviously allowed to roam the earth, but I don’t think it’s OK with God that he has the power over mankind that he does. Mankind allows Satan this authority.


Again, "Do you really think Satan stole from God?".No. It’s more like Adam allowed himself to be taken captive.


I don't understand what you are asking.What/who was mankind bought back from? Christ gave himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6).


Yes it's different, but again, what scripture says Adam was a slave to sin?Adam sinned. Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin (John 8:34).


What scripture says man is born a slave to sin?Good point. I don’t know of one.


Joh 8:34 and some of the others is 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'.Are you saying that Adam was never considered a “slave to sin”? If so, how would you know? At what point does one technically become a “slave to sin”?


You can't apply what happens to most to all. All have sin, but not all are servants of sin. Man has been and can be righteous. We have many such examples in scripture before Christ.Yes, but do you think these men and women who were righteous never at any point in their lives were slaves to sin? How do we know?


This has more than one application. All have sin so all need redemption.

Made in this verse means designate/ordain. Since Adam did not remain sinless and grow in the grace and knowledge of God to be glorified as Christ did, he and his descendants remained in this corruptible mortal state in the flesh in this carnal world. Sin is the result.When you say sin is the result, do you mean that because we are mortal, we will inevitably sin? Can you expand on this idea?

LookingUp
Oct 12th 2010, 12:27 AM
It doesn’t matter what day. Some amount of time elapsed (it doesn't matter how much) from Gen. 2:17 when Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree until the time Eve was deceived in the Garden by the serpent in Gen. 3:1. Adam was not with her, yet she knew about the command. That means that there was a period of time that Adam refrained from eating from the tree where the servant/Master relationship was established.

Yeah, not sure about that. I haven't looked into that.

True.

OK…I’m giving this some consideration. Are there any other Scriptures that lead you to believe God intended for Adam to subdue the devil? That it wasn’t only about obeying God’s command; it was what that obedience led to: subduing Satan. Actually, this is making some sense. I’m intrigued. Through Christ, we now can subdue Satan.

Did you get this idea from someone (i.e. book) or did this come to you through your own personal study time?

Satan is obviously allowed to roam the earth, but I don’t think it’s OK with God that he has the power over mankind that he does. Mankind allows Satan this authority.

No. It’s more like Adam allowed himself to be taken captive.

What/who was mankind bought back from? Christ gave himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6).

Adam sinned. Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin (John 8:34).

Good point. I don’t know of one.

Are you saying that Adam was never considered a “slave to sin”? If so, how would you know? At what point does one technically become a “slave to sin”?

Yes, but do you think these men and women who were righteous never at any point in their lives were slaves to sin? How do we know?

When you say sin is the result, do you mean that because we are mortal, we will inevitably sin? Can you expand on this idea?

edit to add:

I was thinking. What does it really mean that we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13)? Does it mean we were "spiritually" dead?

What does it mean that we need to be born again? Does this mean our "spirit" needs to be born again?

Maybe I need to start another thread or just pm you. It seems you've been looking into all this, so I thought you'd be the one to ask.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 12th 2010, 02:53 AM
edit to add:

I was thinking. What does it really mean that we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13)? Does it mean we were "spiritually" dead?

What does it mean that we need to be born again? Does this mean our "spirit" needs to be born again?

Maybe I need to start another thread or just pm you. It seems you've been looking into all this, so I thought you'd be the one to ask.

Hi, LU-

Did you read my last response in your "Two Spirits" thread? It may contribute some tidbit to this subject.

Sirus
Oct 12th 2010, 03:37 AM
It doesn’t matter what day. Some amount of time elapsed (it doesn't matter how much) from Gen. 2:17 when Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree until the time Eve was deceived in the Garden by the serpent in Gen. 3:1. Adam was not with her, yet she knew about the command. That means that there was a period of time that Adam refrained from eating from the tree where the servant/Master relationship was established.OK, but do we obey a few times and get glorified? How long did Jesus have to obey before His baptism?



OK…I’m giving this some consideration. Are there any other Scriptures that lead you to believe God intended for Adam to subdue the devil? That it wasn’t only about obeying God’s command; it was what that obedience led to: subduing Satan. Actually, this is making some sense. I’m intrigued. Through Christ, we now can subdue Satan.

Did you get this idea from someone (i.e. book) or did this come to you through your own personal study time?Pretty much my own study, though I've been told it is what the first church and early church fathers believed. I also thought most Christians still did. That the Bible was about His kingdom. Adam was given dominion and told to subdue and it never happened until Christ. I don't think God told Adam to do something he could not, do you? Did God give Adam dominion for him to sin and fail so that for four thousand years His will would not be done? Wasn't it always God's plan to have His kingdom on earth?


Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things areput under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Satan is obviously allowed to roam the earth, but I don’t think it’s OK with God that he has the power over mankind that he does. Mankind allows Satan this authority.Well, if Satan has power from God and man has dominion from God how could it not be OK with God? Is He not working His will?


Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

What/who was mankind bought back from? Christ gave himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6).Sin, which came through deception by Satan.


Adam sinned. Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin (John 8:34).Again, 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'. One sin does not make one a slave to sin. That concept is not found in scripture.


Are you saying that Adam was never considered a “slave to sin”? If so, how would you know? At what point does one technically become a “slave to sin”?There's no scripture that says he was.
Certainly more than one sin. The Greek is 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'.


Yes, but do you think these men and women who were righteous never at any point in their lives were slaves to sin? How do we know?I don't know why it matters if they ever were. What matters is repentance, faith, good works, right?


When you say sin is the result, do you mean that because we are mortal, we will inevitably sin? Can you expand on this idea?It's difficult to speculate what if - what exactly would have happened if Adam did not sin. I mean, what do you think would have happened if Adam remained sinless and grew in the grace and knowledge of God and was glorified as Christ was? All I know is that since Adam sinned we all sin. Does it have something to do with not having God talk to us as He did Adam? He did so with Cain and Cain sinned. Noah, Abraham, the list goes on. Flesh certainly is a major factor if not the greatest, and Adam had that as well. Seems to me, flesh had to be crucified, and man has to believe this in order to be totally free from sin.

ProjectPeter
Oct 12th 2010, 03:47 AM
OK, but do we obey a few times and get glorified? How long did Jesus have to obey before His baptism?


Pretty much my own study, though I've been told it is what the first church and early church fathers believed. I also thought most Christians still did. That the Bible was about His kingdom. Adam was given dominion and told to subdue and it never happened until Christ. I don't think God told Adam to do something he could not, do you? Did God give Adam dominion for him to sin and fail so that for four thousand years His will would not be done? Wasn't it always God's plan to have His kingdom on earth?


Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things areput under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Well, if Satan has power from God and man has dominion from God how could it not be OK with God? Is He not working His will?


Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Sin, which came through deception by Satan.

Again, 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'. One sin does not make one a slave to sin. That concept is not found in scripture.

There's no scripture that says he was?
Certainly more than one sin. The Greek is 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'.

I don't know why it matters if they ever were. What matters is repentance, faith, good works, right?

It's difficult to speculate what if - what exactly would have happened if Adam did not sin. I mean, what do you think would have happened if Adam remained sinless and grew in the grace and knowledge of God and was glorified as Christ was? All I know is that since Adam sinned we all sin. Does it have something to do with not having God talk to us as He did Adam? He did so with Cain and Cain sinned. Noah, Abraham, the list goes on. Flesh certainly is a major factor if not the greatest, and Adam had that as well. Seems to me, flesh had to be crucified, and man has to believe this in order to be totally free from sin.

I was reading along waiting to see if you'd go into Hebrews like that. If folks really read Hebrews 1 and 2 very carefully and studied it out... it would kick many a sacred doctrinal cow slap in the proverbial fanny! :lol:

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 12th 2010, 04:26 PM
YES! Preach THAT, Brethren!

Man's Divinely-delegated dominion subverted/yielded through the deceit of A word; then ultimately restored through the truth, which IS THE Word.

LookingUp
Oct 13th 2010, 12:05 AM
OK, but do we obey a few times and get glorified? How long did Jesus have to obey before His baptism?I thought we were just talking about establishing a Master/servant relationship, not glorification. I’m just saying that a relationship between Adam and God existed (one where Adam obeyed God) before he disobeyed.

But if this is about glorification, and there was a chance Adam could have been glorified, I have no idea how long he was expected to be perfectly obedient before his glorification. I don’t think one can conceive and have children after glorification. So, I guess Adam would have had to be obedient for a number of years until he and Eve could fill the earth before he could be glorified. Or maybe when they hit 1,000 years old, they would have become glorified and would have no longer been able to conceive.


Pretty much my own study, though I've been told it is what the first church and early church fathers believed. I also thought most Christians still did. That the Bible was about His kingdom.Well, yeah, I think it is. Just curious…what’s your take on the Millennial Kingdom? Is there an actual physical one coming that will last 1,000 years?


Adam was given dominion and told to subdue and it never happened until Christ. I don't think God told Adam to do something he could not, do you? Did God give Adam dominion for him to sin and fail so that for four thousand years His will would not be done? Wasn't it always God's plan to have His kingdom on earth?Yes. What you’ve written rings true to me.





Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things areput under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,I don’t think I’m seeing what you’re trying to show. Can you be more specific? Maybe a bit of a commentary on the Scriptures you’re presenting?

Isn’t the writer of Hebrews saying that the world to come is subject to Jesus?

Are you saying that since Jesus subdued Satan, even though Satan was not subject to Him at the time, then that means Adam was expected to do the same?


Well, if Satan has power from God and man has dominion from God how could it not be OK with God?It’s OK with God that Satan deceives man? That Satan oppresses man? Doesn’t the entire ministry of Jesus tell us otherwise?


Is He not working His will?I think God’s will can be thwarted. Satan does not do things according to God’s will.


[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]Sin, which came through deception by Satan.OK, man was bought back from sin. When was man sold into the slavery of sin (Rom. 7:14)?


Again, 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'. One sin does not make one a slave to sin. That concept is not found in scripture.

There's no scripture that says he was.
Certainly more than one sin. The Greek is 'liveth continually in the commission of sin'.If Adam was not sold into slavery of sin, why did Jesus need to buy him back from sin?


I don't know why it matters if they ever were. What matters is repentance, faith, good works, right?It matters because if they were never slaves to sin, there was no reason for Jesus to ransom them back from it.


It's difficult to speculate what if - what exactly would have happened if Adam did not sin. I mean, what do you think would have happened if Adam remained sinless and grew in the grace and knowledge of God and was glorified as Christ was? All I know is that since Adam sinned we all sin. Does it have something to do with not having God talk to us as He did Adam? He did so with Cain and Cain sinned. Noah, Abraham, the list goes on. Flesh certainly is a major factor if not the greatest, and Adam had that as well. Seems to me, flesh had to be crucified, and man has to believe this in order to be totally free from sin.

Dani H
Oct 13th 2010, 12:06 AM
What do you think? Does God have a body like ours? If so, is it flesh and bone as the Mormons believe?

Yea He does.

Me.

Sirus
Oct 13th 2010, 02:42 AM
I thought we were just talking about establishing a Master/servant relationship, not glorification. I’m just saying that a relationship between Adam and God existed (one where Adam obeyed God) before he disobeyed.All I am saying is that it appears to be a very short period of time to me, and that we do not know that Adam was ever tempted with the fruit of the tree before. We have nothing that tells us he ever obeyed.


Well, yeah, I think it is. Just curious…what’s your take on the Millennial Kingdom? Is there an actual physical one coming that will last 1,000 years?Yes. That was the kingdom of heaven -earth (not the kingdom of God -they are different) Jesus and John offered Israel only. Jesus returns as the Son of man. He is still a man, and must reign over the earth as man over man.


I don’t think I’m seeing what you’re trying to show. Can you be more specific? Maybe a bit of a commentary on the Scriptures you’re presenting? Heb 2:5-8
The world to come is subjection to man. God put all things under mans feet positionally but man did not subdue and bring it to pass experientially. Verse 8 says what God willed has not happened yet.

Verse 9 says it will in the man Christ Jesus.

1Co 15:27-28 says it is obvious it has not actually happened yet but God said it so it is true. Jesus has the authority but has not used it yet. When He returns and is finished putting down all rule and authority He will deliver the kingdom to the Father, the end will come, then the new earth, and God will dwell with man on earth forever.


Isn’t the writer of Hebrews saying that the world to come is subject to Jesus?Yes, but he is saying it is because Jesus is a man.


Are you saying that since Jesus subdued Satan, even though Satan was not subject to Him at the time, then that means Adam was expected to do the same?That's what Hebrews 1-2 says.


It’s OK with God that Satan deceives man? That Satan oppresses man? Doesn’t the entire ministry of Jesus tell us otherwise?Yes, that's why we go into all the world with the gospel. Isn't this like God enduring with longsuffereing the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction that He might give inheritance to the vessels mercy? He's working a plan. The world the flesh and the devil are elements in that plan, yes?


I think God’s will can be thwarted. Satan does not do things according to God’s will.Right. God's not in a hurry. He's not slack concerning His promise. He will accomplish His will in a just and righteous manner if it takes 10000 years. It won't but I'm just making a point.


OK, man was bought back from sin. When was man sold into the slavery of sin (Rom. 7:14)?When Adam sinned.


If Adam was not sold into slavery of sin, why did Jesus need to buy him back from sin?sold into sin and slave to sin are two different things. Sold into sin means all have sinned and need redemption. Slave to sin is someone that was sold into sin AND became a slave to sin.


It matters because if they were never slaves to sin, there was no reason for Jesus to ransom them back from it.All anyone needs to do is sin one sin. You don't have to be a slave to sin to need redemption for whatever sins you have committed. You just need to sin once to need redemption.

LookingUp
Oct 13th 2010, 04:00 AM
All I am saying is that it appears to be a very short period of time to me, and that we do not know that Adam was ever tempted with the fruit of the tree before. We have nothing that tells us he ever obeyed.Well, I guess I’d agree that we have nothing that tells us that Adam was ever “tempted” and then obeyed, but I think Adam did have a chance to obey God. For example, God brought every beast of the field and every bird of the sky to Adam to see whatever Adam would call them. Adam obeyed and whatever Adam called the living creature, that was its name.

But even if you believe that a relationship was not “lost,” you do believe that something was lost. You agree that because of Adam’s sin, mankind was sold into slavery. Isn’t that a loss? How would you describe that loss?


Yes. That was the kingdom of heaven -earth (not the kingdom of God -they are different) Jesus and John offered Israel only. Jesus returns as the Son of man. He is still a man, and must reign over the earth as man over man.OK. Just curious.

I remember dialoging with a friend who considered the idea that during the Mill. Kingdom, the “born again” mortals who enter the Kingdom will at some point be glorified due to the continued exposure to the glory of the Lord over the 1,000 years of obeying Kingdom Law. Since there is no mention of another resurrection/rapture in the Mill. Kingdom, one may wonder just how these mortals in the Mill. Kingdom will become glorified at the end of the 1,000 years.


Heb 2:5-8
The world to come is subjection to man.What do you mean that “the world to COME is in subjection to man”? Why do you think that “the world to come” was put in subjection to Adam? Maybe the current world Adam was in was put into subjection to him, but why do you say that the world “to come” was put into subjection to Adam?


God put all things under mans feet positionally but man did not subdue and bring it to pass experientially.OK, I might be able to agree that God put all things under Adam’s feet (using this passage, even though the passage seems to be talking about JESUS). But this still doesn’t say that the “world to COME” was in subjection to Adam.


Verse 8 says what God willed has not happened yet.I see that that is true.


Verse 9 says it will in the man Christ Jesus.I agree.


1Co 15:27-28 says it is obvious it has not actually happened yet but God said it so it is true. Jesus has the authority but has not used it yet.Right. In principle but not in reality quite yet.


When He returns and is finished putting down all rule and authority He will deliver the kingdom to the Father, the end will come, then the new earth, and God will dwell with man on earth forever.But I thought Jesus rules for 1,000 years. 1 Cor. 15:28 says that “then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him.” How can Jesus be ruler if He subjects Himself to the One who subjected all things to Him?


Yes, but he is saying it is because Jesus is a man.

That's what Hebrews 1-2 says.I’m sorry…not getting’ this one. “Because” Jesus is a man? Sounds like the writer is saying that it’s all about Jesus, the man.


Yes, that's why we go into all the world with the gospel. Isn't this like God enduring with longsuffereing the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction that He might give inheritance to the vessels mercy? He's working a plan. The world the flesh and the devil is an element in that plan, yes?

Right. God's not in a hurry. He's not slack concerning His promise. He will accomplish His will in a just and righteous manner if it takes 10000 years. It won't but I'm just making a point.

When Adam sinned.OK. I think I’m following what you’re saying with the above.


sold into sin and slave to sin are two different things. Sold into sin means all have sinned and need redemption. Slave to sin is someone that was sold into sin AND became a slave to sin.

All anyone needs to do is sin one sin. You don't have to be a slave to sin to need redemption for whatever sins you have committed. You just need to sin once to need redemption.OK, this is great. I get what you’re saying.

But, to me, that’s what Adam lost. He allowed us to be sold into slavery. Isn’t Adam responsible for that loss? Maybe it wasn’t a “relationship” per se…but how would you describe what Adam lost?

By the way, I'm really enjoying and benefiting from this dialogue. Thank you. :)

Sirus
Oct 14th 2010, 02:27 AM
I need rest. I'll try to reply tomorrow, God willing.
I'm really enjoying and benefiting from the dialogue too. So thank you!
My conclusions have repeatedly been changed and been sharpened in the discussion of this topic.

Pillar
Oct 14th 2010, 03:43 AM
The Father does not have a physical body.

The Son does have a physical body.

The Spirit does not have a physical body.

This would be correct.

Sirus
Oct 15th 2010, 02:26 AM
Well, I guess I’d agree that we have nothing that tells us that Adam was ever “tempted” and then obeyed, but I think Adam did have a chance to obey God. For example, God brought every beast of the field and every bird of the sky to Adam to see whatever Adam would call them. Adam obeyed and whatever Adam called the living creature, that was its name.God didn't say, Adam name these animals or you will die, so where's the obedience with consequence for disobedience?


But even if you believe that a relationship was not “lost,” you do believe that something was lost. You agree that because of Adam’s sin, mankind was sold into slavery. Isn’t that a loss? How would you describe that loss?Again, sold under sin means all would sin and need redemption. That all would be under the penalty of sin, which is physical death. It does not mean all would become slaves to committing sin.

What loss? Well, as I said, there's God's voice- verbal teaching and instruction. We aren't born with that.


I remember dialoging with a friend who considered the idea that during the Mill. Kingdom, the “born again” mortals who enter the Kingdom will at some point be glorified due to the continued exposure to the glory of the Lord over the 1,000 years of obeying Kingdom Law. Since there is no mention of another resurrection/rapture in the Mill. Kingdom, one may wonder just how these mortals in the Mill. Kingdom will become glorified at the end of the 1,000 years. hmmm, well I don't know where they got the idea of born again mortals, or that the mortals will be glorified. Possible. Those areas of Revelation can be sticky. It seems to me the tree of life returns for its original purpose. That's to keep the mortals alive. Glorification is for those that had faith in the previous administrations. The mortals that see the king in His glory and His kingdom aren't having to believe in what they do not see. There's only one resurrection unto everlasting life. The second resurrection is to the great white throne judgment. The one resurrection has already occurred in Christ. Some have already been 'bodily' resurrected when Christ was. At His second coming, the rest will be resurrected. As far as I can tell, scripture does not tell us there's any others. Some say, 'but, it says there will be no more death'. Yes, and there was no death before mortal Adam sinned because he had the tree of life.


What do you mean that “the world to COME is in subjection to man”? Why do you think that “the world to come” was put in subjection to Adam? Maybe the current world Adam was in was put into subjection to him, but why do you say that the world “to come” was put into subjection to Adam?It says it was put in subjection to man.


OK, I might be able to agree that God put all things under Adam’s feet (using this passage, even though the passage seems to be talking about JESUS). But this still doesn’t say that the “world to COME” was in subjection to Adam.It's talking about man. Wasn't Adam a man specifically given dominion? Noah was also given this, BTW.


But I thought Jesus rules for 1,000 years. 1 Cor. 15:28 says that “then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him.” How can Jesus be ruler if He subjects Himself to the One who subjected all things to Him?Man will continue to rule as God originally intended. There's speculation as to what happens here. Some believe He gives up His manhood at this point. I don't know. Scripture doesn't say.


I’m sorry…not getting’ this one. “Because” Jesus is a man? Sounds like the writer is saying that it’s all about Jesus, the man.Wait. It's about the man, but you wonder how it is because He is a man? I'm confused :)


Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Jesus repeatedly attempted to conceal he was the Son of God but openly confessed He was the Son of man.



But, to me, that’s what Adam lost. He allowed us to be sold into slavery. Isn’t Adam responsible for that loss? Maybe it wasn’t a “relationship” per se…but how would you describe what Adam lost?Adam lost innocence and needed redemption. So did we through our own sin. God did not tell Adam all of His children would also sin and physically die. How then would Adam be responsible for that?

Sirus
Oct 15th 2010, 03:54 AM
edit to add:

I was thinking. What does it really mean that we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13)? Does it mean we were "spiritually" dead?

What does it mean that we need to be born again? Does this mean our "spirit" needs to be born again?

Maybe I need to start another thread or just pm you. It seems you've been looking into all this, so I thought you'd be the one to ask.I forget about this one. Sorry.

Could be 'spiritually' dead depending on what you mean -Rom 1.
dead in --> trespasses proves it's not in birth but in willful transgression of God's law -conscience. The following verses explain.
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world"
"conversation in times past"
It's important to note that man first rejects the truth and knowledge of God, not the other way around. Our trespasses and sins separated us from God. However, this separation does not soon erase from the conscience the law and knowledge of God immediately or completely. This takes time (a blinding/deception) and only God knows the heart. So just because someone sins against their conscience, it does not mean they can no longer hear that same God given conscience. Especially when they hear the gospel.

That which is born of flesh is flesh and likewise the Spirit. Our spirit would only need to be born again if it were truly dead, which is an impossibility, because it is eternal. There's no indication Adam had the Spirit internally and permanent. God left and was not there when he sinned. It seems Adam either had the Spirit as those in the OT or in a lesser degree. Adam was natural, not spiritual -1Cor 15.

If Adam died spiritually, and spiritual death is what was passed on to all men, then Christ must also had died spiritually. He did not. If then Christ did not die spiritually, He did not answer in correspondence to the death Adam brought. He came to taste of physical death on a tree that we might be reconciled to God and have physical bodily eternal life. Repeatedly, over and over again and again, the answer to the death brought about by Adam was bodily resurrection. That death was physical. The death that reigned from Adam to Moses was physical death. The 'fear of death' passage you posted earlier is physical death. On and on, I can post ALL the verses if you like.

Pillar
Oct 15th 2010, 04:01 AM
If Adam died spiritually, and spiritual death is what was passed on to all men, then Christ must also had died spiritually. He did not. If then Christ did not die spiritually, He did not answer in correspondence to the death Adam brought. He came to taste of physical death on a tree that we might be reconciled to God and have physical bodily eternal life. Repeatedly, over and over again and again, the answer to the death brought about by Adam was bodily resurrection. That death was physical. The death that reigned from Adam to Moses was physical death. The 'fear of death' passage you posted earlier is physical death. On and on, I can post ALL the verses if you like.

You are correct. Sin begot physical bodily death, not spiritual death. Which is why Christ had to rise bodily from the grave, and not spiritually, to conquer death. And this is also how all Christians will conquer death. We will rise bodily from the grave, not spiritually. The Greek word is θάνατος(thanatos) and it means bodily death, not spiritual death.

LookingUp
Oct 15th 2010, 05:40 AM
God didn't say, Adam name these animals or you will die, so where's the obedience with consequence for disobedience?A Master/servant relationship is established only when there is a consequence for disobedience? I don’t think so. It seems to me that since Adam knew he was created by God and given everything by God, he knew he was under God’s leadership. Adam simply did what God asked. Adam didn’t need to know if there were consequences for not obeying for him to choose to obey.

But even if Adam established some kind of relationship with God doesn’t mean he lost that relationship after his disobedience. From what I can tell, Adam continued to obey God after he was removed from the garden.


Again, sold under sin means all would sin and need redemption. That all would be under the penalty of sin, which is physical death. It does not mean all would become slaves to committing sin.“All” would sin? What about a baby? A baby is under the penalty of sin (physical death) without ever sinning.

Earlier I mentioned Gal. 3:13 and I don’t think you knew what I was trying to say. It says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law.” The curse of the Law is death. Christ redeemed us from death, physical death.


What loss? Well, as I said, there's God's voice- verbal teaching and instruction. We aren't born with that.Right.


hmmm, well I don't know where they got the idea of born again mortals,They got it from John 3:3-5. I think you differentiate between the kingdom of God and the new earth & heaven, right?


or that the mortals will be glorified.Oh, that’s from a bunch of OT Scriptures that talk about how the glory of God lights up Israel in the coming kingdom.


Possible. Those areas of Revelation can be sticky.Indeed!


It seems to me the tree of life returns for its original purpose. That's to keep the mortals alive.This is also what my friend believes. The Tree keeps them alive and that possibly they are glorified by the continued exposure to the Lord.


Glorification is for those that had faith in the previous administrations. The mortals that see the king in His glory and His kingdom aren't having to believe in what they do not see.True.


There's only one resurrection unto everlasting life. The second resurrection is to the great white throne judgment. The one resurrection has already occurred in Christ. Some have already been 'bodily' resurrected when Christ was. At His second coming, the rest will be resurrected. As far as I can tell, scripture does not tell us there's any others.Right.


Some say, 'but, it says there will be no more death'. Yes, and there was no death before mortal Adam sinned because he had the tree of life.So do you think the glorified and the mortals who live off the Tree of Life live together for eternity? Do you think the mortals reproduce throughout eternity? If so, the mortals will eventually outnumber the glorified. Not that that is important, but it’s just a thought.


It says it was put in subjection to man.Oh yeah, you’re right. It says what is “man” OR the “son of man.”


It's talking about man. Wasn't Adam a man specifically given dominion? Noah was also given this, BTW.I think I see it now. I thought it was specifically and only about Jesus, but I can see it seems to be about man, in general, and also about Jesus, the man.


Man will continue to rule as God originally intended. There's speculation as to what happens here. Some believe He gives up His manhood at this point. I don't know. Scripture doesn't say.OK


Wait. It's about the man, but you wonder how it is because He is a man? I'm confused :)


Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Jesus repeatedly attempted to conceal he was the Son of God but openly confessed He was the Son of man.


After reading the passage again, I think I get it now.


Adam lost innocence and needed redemption. So did we through our own sin. God did not tell Adam all of His children would also sin and physically die. How then would Adam be responsible for that?Yeah, you’re right! Why didn’t God tell Adam that his disobedience would not only lead to his own death but to the death of all his descendants? But…isn’t it true that we are “stuck” in a world that will lead us to eventually sin? Whose fault is that? Not ours. It’s Adam’s fault. It’s not his fault that we sin, but it’s his fault we’re exposed to circumstances that tempt us to such a degree we inevitably sin.

Looking forward to your reply. This is very interesting stuff to me.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 15th 2010, 07:27 AM
I forget about this one. Sorry.

Could be 'spiritually' dead depending on what you mean -Rom 1.
dead in --> trespasses proves it's not in birth but in willful transgression of God's law -conscience. The following verses explain.
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world"
"conversation in times past"
It's important to note that man first rejects the truth and knowledge of God, not the other way around. Our trespasses and sins separated us from God. However, this separation does not soon erase from the conscience the law and knowledge of God immediately or completely. This takes time (a blinding/deception) and only God knows the heart. So just because someone sins against their conscience, it does not mean they can no longer hear that same God given conscience. Especially when they hear the gospel.

That which is born of flesh is flesh and likewise the Spirit. Our spirit would only need to be born again if it were truly dead, which is an impossibility, because it is eternal. There's no indication Adam had the Spirit internally and permanent. God left and was not there when he sinned. It seems Adam either had the Spirit as those in the OT or in a lesser degree. Adam was natural, not spiritual -1Cor 15.

If Adam died spiritually, and spiritual death is what was passed on to all men, then Christ must also had died spiritually. He did not. If then Christ did not die spiritually, He did not answer in correspondence to the death Adam brought. He came to taste of physical death on a tree that we might be reconciled to God and have physical bodily eternal life. Repeatedly, over and over again and again, the answer to the death brought about by Adam was bodily resurrection. That death was physical. The death that reigned from Adam to Moses was physical death. The 'fear of death' passage you posted earlier is physical death. On and on, I can post ALL the verses if you like.

I've been following along...

I think if you look a bit deeper, you'll see there's even more. Adam experienced both immediate spiritual death (separation/cessation of communion with original environment; not annihilation, eradication, or elimation of existence) AND the resulting eventual physical death because of that spiritual death. This left man's fallen soul vulnerable to the second death if not somehow redeemed during physical life before the spirit returns to God at physical death.

Jesus also experienced spiritual death (communal separation/cessation) when He cried "Father, Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"; THEN came physical death.

Fear not him who can kill the body, but him who can kill both body and soul in hell. Until man's spirit is resurrected by the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost, the soul cannot be restored from whence it has fallen and will thus "die" when the body dies. Again, death is communal cessation, not existential eradication. If man's soul and spirit are not divided asunder (restorational distribution), the spirit will return to God without the soul; thus eternal separation from God's presence like Satan and the fallen host. The soul dies (eternal, irrevocable, unredeemable cessation of communion) the second death. Bad... very bad.

The conjoined spirit-soul of man must be divided adunder during physical life or the first death will bring the second. Jesus died that death for us to give us also the resurrection. There can be no resurrection after the second death, since it must be imputed to us before the first death.

Sirus
Oct 16th 2010, 04:31 AM
A Master/servant relationship is established only when there is a consequence for disobedience?Absolutely! But IMO, I think you are starting off on the wrong premise. I'd say it was more a father/son relationship, wouldn't you?


It seems to me that since Adam knew he was created by God and given everything by God, he knew he was under God’s leadership. Adam simply did what God asked.Like a father/son relationship?


Adam didn’t need to know if there were consequences for not obeying for him to choose to obey.You have to know there are consequences for disobedience for there to be consequences for disobedience. Bad/wrong choices have consequence as well but they are about learning, growth, and knowledge and wisdom. In a father/son scenario, the son desires to learn from and be with the father. This is not obedience, it is relationship. So, now we just have to search the text to see if this either continued or ended.


But even if Adam established some kind of relationship with God doesn’t mean he lost that relationship after his disobedience.Not at all. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn't. Israel didn't. We don't. Why would Adam?


From what I can tell, Adam continued to obey God after he was removed from the garden.I'm not disputing this because I don't have any text to dispute it with, but what text do you base this on? Just curious.


“All” would sin? What about a baby? A baby is under the penalty of sin (physical death) without ever sinning.Yes, would. Age of accountability. A baby is innocent and is therefore not under the penalty of death for sin. The works were finished from the foundation of the world and God rested on the 7th day. He just hasn't messed with the natural processes He set forth, other than remove the tree of life.


Earlier I mentioned Gal. 3:13 and I don’t think you knew what I was trying to say. It says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law.” The curse of the Law is death. Christ redeemed us from death, physical death.OK. I agree. Is there something else?


They got it from John 3:3-5. I think you differentiate between the kingdom of God and the new earth & heaven, right?I know what born again means. I'm wondering where they got the idea that mortals are born again in the millennium.


Oh, that’s from a bunch of OT Scriptures that talk about how the glory of God lights up Israel in the coming kingdom.I don't know those.


This is also what my friend believes. The Tree keeps them alive and that possibly they are glorified by the continued exposure to the Lord.I don't know what would cause someone to believe this.


So do you think the glorified and the mortals who live off the Tree of Life live together for eternity?Could be. I'm not sure. IMO, scripture isn't exactly clear on this.


Do you think the mortals reproduce throughout eternity?
Not sure about this either.


Yeah, you’re right! Why didn’t God tell Adam that his disobedience would not only lead to his own death but to the death of all his descendants? But…isn’t it true that we are “stuck” in a world that will lead us to eventually sin? Whose fault is that? Not ours. It’s Adam’s fault. It’s not his fault that we sin, but it’s his fault we’re exposed to circumstances that tempt us to such a degree we inevitably sin.Yes, Ps 51 -born in iniquity. As for it being Adam's fault, again, he did not know the far reaching ramifications, so how can he be blamed?

percho
Oct 16th 2010, 06:14 AM
You are correct. Sin begot physical bodily death, not spiritual death. Which is why Christ had to rise bodily from the grave, and not spiritually, to conquer death. And this is also how all Christians will conquer death. We will rise bodily from the grave, not spiritually. The Greek word is θάνατος(thanatos) and it means bodily death, not spiritual death.

What is the Greek word for spiritual death? I know no Greek.

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2010, 06:22 AM
I forget about this one. Sorry.

Could be 'spiritually' dead depending on what you mean -Rom 1.
dead in --> trespasses proves it's not in birth but in willful transgression of God's law -conscience. The following verses explain.
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world"
"conversation in times past"
It's important to note that man first rejects the truth and knowledge of God, not the other way around. Our trespasses and sins separated us from God. However, this separation does not soon erase from the conscience the law and knowledge of God immediately or completely. This takes time (a blinding/deception) and only God knows the heart. So just because someone sins against their conscience, it does not mean they can no longer hear that same God given conscience. Especially when they hear the gospel.Thanks.


That which is born of flesh is flesh and likewise the Spirit. Our spirit would only need to be born again if it were truly dead, which is an impossibility, because it is eternal. There's no indication Adam had the Spirit internally and permanent. God left and was not there when he sinned. It seems Adam either had the Spirit as those in the OT or in a lesser degree. Adam was natural, not spiritual -1Cor 15.I don’t understand much of this. It sounds like you’re saying that Adam did not have a spirit that was eternal, but “we” (believer and unbelievers?) do.


If Adam died spiritually, and spiritual death is what was passed on to all men, then Christ must also had died spiritually. He did not. If then Christ did not die spiritually, He did not answer in correspondence to the death Adam brought. He came to taste of physical death on a tree that we might be reconciled to God and have physical bodily eternal life. Repeatedly, over and over again and again, the answer to the death brought about by Adam was bodily resurrection. That death was physical. The death that reigned from Adam to Moses was physical death. The 'fear of death' passage you posted earlier is physical death. On and on, I can post ALL the verses if you like.I see what you’re saying here.


Absolutely! But IMO, I think you are starting off on the wrong premise. I'd say it was more a father/son relationship, wouldn't you?Yeah, I think so.


Like a father/son relationship?Yes.


You have to know there are consequences for disobedience for there to be consequences for disobedience. Bad/wrong choices have consequence as well but they are about learning, growth, and knowledge and wisdom. In a father/son scenario, the son desires to learn from and be with the father. This is not obedience, it is relationship. So, now we just have to search the text to see if this either continued or ended.OK


Not at all. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn't. Israel didn't. We don't. Why would Adam?Right.


I'm not disputing this because I don't have any text to dispute it with, but what text do you base this on? Just curious.I guess I always thought Adam and Eve continued to obey because they took His command to be fruitful and multiply to heart, even if it meant increased pain for Eve. And they felt it was God who blessed them for it (Gen. 4:1, 25). Because of their obedience we have Seth and so on and so on and…the Lord.


Yes, would. Age of accountability. A baby is innocent and is therefore not under the penalty of death for sin. The works were finished from the foundation of the world and God rested on the 7th day. He just hasn't messed with the natural processes He set forth, other than remove the tree of life.This still isn’t making sense yet.

The minute a baby dies, he pays the penalty for sin which he never committed. Why?

Unless there are actually two reasons humans die. One is just due to the “natural process” and one is to pay for sin.

Why is a penalty for sin necessary if we’re all going to physically die anyway from the “natural process”?


OK. I agree. Is there something else?No. I just thought it was nice to have such a specific Scripture that backs what you’re saying.


I know what born again means. I'm wondering where they got the idea that mortals are born again in the millennium.You’re not following me. The reason my friend feels that mortals are born again in the mill. kingdom is because Jesus said that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they’re born again. He feels the mill. Kingdom is the same thing as the kingdom of God.


I don't know those.

I don't know what would cause someone to believe this.You mean the part about mortals being glorified in the mill. Kingdom? Like I said, he speculates that some of the OT scriptures are talking about it. I’m not saying I agree…just sharing to see if you’ve heard of it.


Could be. I'm not sure. IMO, scripture isn't exactly clear on this.

Not sure about this either.

Yes, Ps 51 -born in iniquity. As for it being Adam's fault, again, he did not know the far reaching ramifications, so how can he be blamed?Well, yes, that’s true. I think of it like this. If I tell my son not to play with fire, and I tell him it's because he could burn himself and he chooses to disobey but ends up burning down the house, he’s still to blame for burning down the house even if he never even considered that as a possibility for his disobedience.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 16th 2010, 04:59 PM
What is the Greek word for spiritual death? I know no Greek.

Others are engrossed and unresponsive, so I'll answer.

Thanatos (G2288) is used for natural physical death, but not exclusively by any means. It also means spititual death or eternal death, depending on usage.

"We know that we have passed from death (G2288) unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death (G2288)." -1 John 3:14

Obviously, John's epistle is NOT referring to physical death. Death is rendered as articular in both above usages, meaning "the death".

thanatos (G2288): from genitive thanatou, masculine noun from thnesko (G2348), to die, death.

Generally and of natural death. Metonymically for plague. Destruction, perdition, misery; implying both physical death and exclusion from the presence and favor of God in consequence of sin and disobedience, but never as extinction. Opposed to life (zoe G2222) and blessedness.

In the NT, applied with more definitiveness to the gospel plan of salvation. As zoe denotes bliss and glory in God's kingdom, including a joyful resurrection; so thanatos is used for the opposite as rejection from God's kingdom with physical death being aggravated by eternal condemnation. The prominence of physical death with the addition of subsequent perdition. Physical death is not exclusive, since the body is not the only element of man's constitution; death is a temporal event with eternal implications.

In etymology, thanatos is from thnesko, from which apothnesko is derived. Apothnesko is to die off or die out, used of a separation of the soul from the body and of the separation of man from God.

Antonyms are bios (G979), life, its manner and length; zoe (G2222), life, the essence of life; and psuche (G5590), soul life.

Thanatos is more the antithesis of life than distinctly death. It is non-life.

Sirus
Oct 16th 2010, 05:33 PM
Adam experienced both immediate spiritual death (separation/cessation of communion with original environment;Hi PPS. Could you expound on this? I know he was banished from the garden and tree of life but since you are talking spiritual here, what communion was he separated from spiritually, and what text shows this loss?


Jesus also experienced spiritual death (communal separation/cessation) when He cried "Father, Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"; THEN came physical death.Actually, what He said was "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". The overcoming, sinless Son of man who did not deserve any punishment for sin but willing submitted himself to death because of sin, said this. Not that He was not God, but the sinless man to whom the kingdom had been given. So, it's not as though unity and oneness of the Trinity was broken. God forbid! I submit unto you this is not spiritual death, neither can it be. The psalmist, and prophets for His people, often cried about being forsaken while God maintained a remnant. What believer doesn't know what it is like to sin and feel forsaken, though they are not? After all, he is our high priest. Jesus said "my God", one other time as the overcoming, risen Son of man.


Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
If Jesus was truly, utterly and completely, forsaken because of sin while being the sacrifice for man, who made sacrifice for Him? How was He reconciled back to God? It just doesn't fly.


Until man's spirit is resurrected by the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost, the soul cannot be restored from whence it has fallen and will thus "die" when the body dies.There's nothing in Scripture about the spirit being resurrected. The resurrection is always bodily.

So Adam's soul was fallen before he sinned? What makes you think Adam had the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost?

Sirus
Oct 16th 2010, 06:32 PM
I don’t understand much of this. It sounds like you’re saying that Adam did not have a spirit that was eternal, but “we” (believer and unbelievers?) do.He did. All do. It doesn't look like Adam had the permanent indwelling Spirit. You asked if the spirit needs to be born again. Born again is by the Spirit. All of man is born again -body soul spirit. Adam needed this too.


I guess I always thought Adam and Eve continued to obey because they took His command to be fruitful and multiply to heart, even if it meant increased pain for Eve. And they felt it was God who blessed them for it (Gen. 4:1, 25). Because of their obedience we have Seth and so on and so on and…the Lord.Thanks. I agree. Genesis never speaks of them after they sinned in the garden in a negative light. We are so quick to blame Adam for what he knew nothing about and act like it was the most hell deserving act ever committed. If God treated all this way no one would ever be saved. I am so thankful He is God and His ways much higher than ours.


The minute a baby dies, he pays the penalty for sin which he never committed. Why?

Unless there are actually two reasons humans die. One is just due to the “natural process” and one is to pay for sin.

Why is a penalty for sin necessary if we’re all going to physically die anyway from the “natural process”?We physically die due to "natural process" -no tree of life. The penalty for sin was no tree of life -physical death.
However, this physical death cannot hold anyone that has not sinned -Jesus, babies.
One who sins earns the wage -death. Death can hold this individual.


No. I just thought it was nice to have such a specific Scripture that backs what you’re saying.Ah yes. I see. Thanks!


You’re not following me. The reason my friend feels that mortals are born again in the mill. kingdom is because Jesus said that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they’re born again. He feels the mill. Kingdom is the same thing as the kingdom of God.So then they are born again first, not during. Sounded to me like your friend believed it happens during the M over a period of time and exposure to the King. BTW; I believe the kingdom of God has been, is, and will be -during the M as well.


Well, yes, that’s true. I think of it like this. If I tell my son not to play with fire, and I tell him it's because he could burn himself and he chooses to disobey but ends up burning down the house, he’s still to blame for burning down the house even if he never even considered that as a possibility for his disobedience.I disagree. You didn't tell him he could burn down the house.

Sirus
Oct 16th 2010, 06:39 PM
You are correct. Sin begot physical bodily death, not spiritual death. Which is why Christ had to rise bodily from the grave, and not spiritually, to conquer death. And this is also how all Christians will conquer death. We will rise bodily from the grave, not spiritually. The Greek word is θάνατος(thanatos) and it means bodily death, not spiritual death.Amen!

This doesn't sound like man is spiritually dead.

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2010, 08:07 PM
He did. All do. It doesn't look like Adam had the permanent indwelling Spirit. You asked if the spirit needs to be born again. Born again is by the Spirit. All of man is born again -body soul spirit. Adam needed this too.OK, thanks. So, when you say, “I’m born again,” what do you mean exactly? Do you mean that your spirit and soul are presently born again (i.e. born of the Sprit and born of God), but your body will be born again at the resurrection?

Or do you believe that your body, soul, and spirit are born again only in principle and that the reality is at the resurrection/rapture?

How would you describe what it means to be one who is born again?


Thanks. I agree. Genesis never speaks of them after they sinned in the garden in a negative light. We are so quick to blame Adam for what he knew nothing about and act like it was the most hell deserving act ever committed. If God treated all this way no one would ever be saved. I am so thankful He is God and His ways much higher than ours.

We physically die due to "natural process" -no tree of life. The penalty for sin was no tree of life -physical death.
However, this physical death cannot hold anyone that has not sinned -Jesus, babies.
One who sins earns the wage -death. Death can hold this individual.Got it. Thanks.


Ah yes. I see. Thanks!

So then they are born again first, not during.Exactly. Right at the very beginning prior to entering the Mill. Kingdom.


Sounded to me like your friend believed it happens during the M over a period of time and exposure to the King.Being born again and being glorified are two different things, yes? So, the idea goes something like this. Israel goes through a great tribulation near the end of this age. Right when Israel knows their annihilation is imminent, the resurrection/rapture takes place, and Jesus comes from heaven to rescue them. All Israel repents and comes to faith in their Savior and are born again. All these brand new born again Jews go into the Mill. Kingdom. At what point he thinks Israel is glorified, I don’t know, but I remember some Scriptures he pointed to in order to support this idea.

Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. (Isa. 60:1-3)


BTW; I believe the kingdom of God has been, is, and will be -during the M as well.Oh, OK. I thought you didn’t think that. I must be thinking of someone else. Sorry.


I disagree. You didn't tell him he could burn down the house.Do you mean I didn’t tell him NOT to burn down the house? Shall I tell him he’s not to blame for burning down the house? That it’s not his fault? Whose fault is it?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 17th 2010, 12:17 AM
Hi, Sirus-
I've been enjoying your exchanges in this thread.


Hi PPS. Could you expound on this? I know he was banished from the garden and tree of life but since you are talking spiritual here, what communion was he separated from spiritually, and what text shows this loss?

Communion is an intrinsic relational function, not just an act. If there were no spiritual death, there would be no need for the spiritual rebirth of being born again.

Death is an absense of life by separation; it is non-life or un-life. The Genesis account and OT don't convey this in the same clarity as the NT. Scriptures such as 1 John 3:14 and John 8:51 are an indicator that the death from original sin was not exclusively physical. Man's spirit is his functional God-communal element; the soul subverted, supplanted, and subrogated that communion by usurpation. The soul cannot directly commune with God's Spirit; so there is no intrinsic means for man's spirit to attain and maintain direct contact with God. This communal cessation is spiritual death, necessitating spiritual rebirth.


Actually, what He said was "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?".

Yes. My casual quote was very careless.


The overcoming, sinless Son of man who did not deserve any punishment for sin but willing submitted himself to death because of sin, said this. Not that He was not God, but the sinless man to whom the kingdom had been given. So, it's not as though unity and oneness of the Trinity was broken. God forbid! I submit unto you this is not spiritual death, neither can it be. The psalmist, and prophets for His people, often cried about being forsaken while God maintained a remnant. What believer doesn't know what it is like to sin and feel forsaken, though they are not? After all, he is our high priest. Jesus said "my God", one other time as the overcoming, risen Son of man.


Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
If Jesus was truly, utterly and completely, forsaken because of sin while being the sacrifice for man, who made sacrifice for Him? How was He reconciled back to God? It just doesn't fly.

The fullness-of-the-Godhead man Christ Jesus suffered OUR spiritual death (separation), which is what brought physical death to his body. Animals died to temporarily atone for our sin through physical death; there had to come a sacrifice that could atone by experiencing spiritual death in our stead, which goats and rams could not do. He needed no reconciliation as being sinless; so death could not hold him. His perfect obedience unto death fulfilled the righteousness of the Law, thus abrogating it as a curse. The fully-man portion of Jesus took on the tainting of mankind's diseased soul condition. That presence of our inherited original sin in his human soul severed the communion of his spirit with God while he hung on the cross. He laid down his life (G5590 - soul) for us. He didn't just restore physical life, he abolished death. He died the second death (separation) of the soul on our behalf.


There's nothing in Scripture about the spirit being resurrected. The resurrection is always bodily.

Resurrection was a descriptive term for the dividing asunder process, not a definition. Sorry, I have had to adjust expressions at times to illustrate this to others. The distribution of dividing asunder in Hebrews 4:12 is what I am referencing. Resurrection is how Scripture refers to the body. If the spirit weren't dead, eternal life wouldn't be missing from the soul.


So Adam's soul was fallen before he sinned?

No, of course not. The mind-will-emotion soul faculties were functionally responsive; when those soul faculties initiatively sinned, the soul brought separation and cessation of his spirit's faculties to God.


What makes you think Adam had the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost?

He didn't. The relationship of Adam's spirit with God's Spirit was extrinsic, not intrinsic. When this internal spirit-soul balance was "undistributed", Adam's spirit had no way of accessing God's Spirit because he didn't have the indwelling Holy Ghost. Only the mystery that hath been hid from ages and from generations can restore intrinsically what was cut off extrinsically.

Sirus
Oct 17th 2010, 04:51 AM
OK, thanks. So, when you say, “I’m born again,” what do you mean exactly? Do you mean that your spirit and soul are presently born again (i.e. born of the Sprit and born of God), but your body will be born again at the resurrection?Well pretty much but even the spirit/soul doesn't get the full measure as Jesus did, so there's still much more. We have a down payment. Also, everyone is given different measures of grace. Paul talked about this. Since we each have different characteristics, personalities, lives, circumstances and on and on, we are on different levels. Some heard the voice others heard thunder.


Being born again and being glorified are two different things, yes?Yes, I'm sorry, I got hasty and mixed the two.


So, the idea goes something like this. Israel goes through a great tribulation near the end of this age. Right when Israel knows their annihilation is imminent, the resurrection/rapture takes place, and Jesus comes from heaven to rescue them. All Israel repents and comes to faith in their Savior and are born again. All these brand new born again Jews go into the Mill. Kingdom. At what point he thinks Israel is glorified, I don’t know, but I remember some Scriptures he pointed to in order to support this idea.

Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. (Isa. 60:1-3)OK but we've gone from mortals to Israel. Not that Israel won't be mortal but we know Israel won't be the only ones.


Oh, OK. I thought you didn’t think that. I must be thinking of someone else. Sorry.No, you were probably thinking about me. I don't doubt it a bit, and there's good reason to to think it was me because I do often speak of their differences. However, there's far more similarities than there are differences. The one kingdom, having spiritual and physical aspects, would naturally have similarities and differences. I try to get people to focus on the differences and ask themselves why those differences exist and what do they tell us?


Do you mean I didn’t tell him NOT to burn down the house? Shall I tell him he’s not to blame for burning down the house? That it’s not his fault? Whose fault is it?I guess it would be your fault, would it not? Why does a child that doesn't have the capacity to know and understand the ramifications and responsibility of burning down a house, have the means and time alone in which to do so? I can't think of a better one but I don't think your example is a good one.

Sirus
Oct 17th 2010, 05:58 AM
Communion is an intrinsic relational function, not just an act. If there were no spiritual death, there would be no need for the spiritual rebirth of being born again.rebirth? There's only two births. Flesh and Spirit. Not three. Spirit, flesh, and Spirit.


Death is an absense of life by separation; it is non-life or un-life. The Genesis account and OT don't convey this in the same clarity as the NT. Scriptures such as 1 John 3:14 and John 8:51 are an indicator that the death from original sin was not exclusively physical.1 John 3:14 and John 8:51 are about the spiritual that is physical, which never occurred until Christ. Adam and all in Adam -earthy
Christ and all in Christ -heavenly
The spiritual did not come first. The earthy came first.


Man's spirit is his functional God-communal element;Agreed.


the soul subverted, supplanted, and subrogated that communion by usurpation.Scripture?


there is no intrinsic means for man's spirit to attain and maintain direct contact with God.That's what the spirit does.


This communal cessation is spiritual death, necessitating spiritual rebirth.Again, what communal cessation? Where's your scripture? Anything?


The fullness-of-the-Godhead man Christ Jesus suffered OUR spiritual death (separation), which is what brought physical death to his body. Animals died to temporarily atone for our sin through physical death; there had to come a sacrifice that could atone by experiencing spiritual death in our stead, which goats and rams could not do. He needed no reconciliation as being sinless; so death could not hold him. His perfect obedience unto death fulfilled the righteousness of the Law, thus abrogating it as a curse. The fully-man portion of Jesus took on the tainting of mankind's diseased soul condition. That presence of our inherited original sin in his human soul severed the communion of his spirit with God while he hung on the cross. He laid down his life (G5590 - soul) for us. He didn't just restore physical life, he abolished death. He died the second death (separation) of the soul on our behalf.Have you been reading some books other than the Bible?


Resurrection was a descriptive term for the dividing asunder process, not a definition. Sorry, I have had to adjust expressions at times to illustrate this to others. The distribution of dividing asunder in Hebrews 4:12 is what I am referencing.Yes, I know but Heb 4 and the "the dividing asunder process" doesn't have anything to do with this.


If the spirit weren't dead, eternal life wouldn't be missing from the soul.Mortal, dying, decaying, corruptible, sinless Adam had eternal life through a tree. Even after he sinned he had that unless God kept him from the tree.


No, of course not. The mind-will-emotion soul faculties were functionally responsive; when those soul faculties initiatively sinned, the soul brought separation and cessation of his spirit's faculties to God.I'll have to continue to ask for scripture.


He didn't. The relationship of Adam's spirit with God's Spirit was extrinsic, not intrinsic. When this internal spirit-soul balance was "undistributed", Adam's spirit had no way of accessing God's Spirit because he didn't have the indwelling Holy Ghost. Only the mystery that hath been hid from ages and from generations can restore intrinsically what was cut off extrinsically.This I agree with, except for the "internal spirit-soul balance" part.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Oct 17th 2010, 07:15 AM
rebirth? There's only two births. Flesh and Spirit. Not three. Spirit, flesh, and Spirit.

1 John 3:14 and John 8:51 are about the spiritual that is physical, which never occurred until Christ. Adam and all in Adam -earthy
Christ and all in Christ -heavenly
The spiritual did not come first. The earthy came first.

Agreed.

Scripture?

That's what the spirit does.

Again, what communal cessation? Where's your scripture? Anything?

Have you been reading some books other than the Bible?

Yes, I know but Heb 4 and the "the dividing asunder process" doesn't have anything to do with this.

Mortal, dying, decaying, corruptible, sinless Adam had eternal life through a tree. Even after he sinned he had that unless God kept him from the tree.

I'll have to continue to ask for scripture.

This I agree with, except for the "internal spirit-soul balance" part.

You seem to misunderstand everything I present. I've enjoyed following along, but wholly disagree and was trying to graciously contribute.

I'm not saying there are 3 deaths/births.

I'm not really sure how you're representing man's need to be born again if his spirit is in the same state as prior to the fall. Your explanation of the constitution of man is unclear.

Insinuating that my understanding comes from reading something other than the Word is puzzling and condescending. Rather than continue, I'll leave you to your own opinions about this without assuming they came from a non-biblical source.

Sirus
Oct 17th 2010, 05:41 PM
I don't know where you got 3 deaths/births either.

It's very simple. Just show me some scripture that indicates the state of Adam's spirit changed when he sinned. I'm not talking about the taint and guilt of sin but the spirits purpose, ability, and function.
The natural, earthy, man came first -1st birth.
Natural, earthy, man needed to be born of the Spirit -2nd birth- from his creation -natural/earthy.
Jesus was the first man to obey and receive the Spirit w/o measure.

The book thing was a question. It's not easy to ask that question on the internet w/o the possibility that one will be 'offended'. That was not my intent. From thread, to thread, to thread, you keep repeating the same things, using the same handful of verses, and most of us disagree with you. That doesn't make you wrong, but you should recognize it is indeed different and that people are going to, as they should, ask how you come up with what you believe. There's at least a few topics I have to do this on. If I can't or won't give an answer, I shouldn't be stating my opinion in the thread to begin with. What do I accomplish if I leave people confused about what I said? All I've really done is waste my own time.

Another thread ended the same way between you and I. Hebrews 4:12 doesn't apply to what you are applying it to.
It is your belief in spiritual death that makes you interpret 1 John 3:14 and John 8:51 as such. They are really just about natural/earthy man becoming spiritual/heavenly.

LookingUp
Oct 18th 2010, 02:26 AM
Well pretty much but even the spirit/soul doesn't get the full measure as Jesus did, so there's still much more.OK, so you believe that Scripture teaches that our soul and spirit are born again (born of the Spirit), and our bodies are born again at the resurrection.

You believe that the physical resurrection is a second birth because the physical body physically dies, right? Do you also think that the spirit and soul experience a second birth when they are born again because the soul and spirit died? If not, why do they need a second birth like the body does?


We have a down payment. Also, everyone is given different measures of grace. Paul talked about this. Since we each have different characteristics, personalities, lives, circumstances and on and on, we are on different levels. Some heard the voice others heard thunder.Would you be willing to expand on this a bit?


Yes, I'm sorry, I got hasty and mixed the two.

OK but we've gone from mortals to Israel. Not that Israel won't be mortal but we know Israel won't be the only ones.Right, I did go from mortals to Israel. Sorry about that. Let me try to explain. His view is that only Israel is glorified during the 1,000 years. I think he believes that the gentile mortals remain mortal, living off the tree of life, as long as they live in some kind of submission to Israel.


No, you were probably thinking about me. I don't doubt it a bit, and there's good reason to to think it was me because I do often speak of their differences. However, there's far more similarities than there are differences. The one kingdom, having spiritual and physical aspects, would naturally have similarities and differences. I try to get people to focus on the differences and ask themselves why those differences exist and what do they tell us?Care to share more about what the differences are and why they exist?


I guess it would be your fault, would it not? Why does a child that doesn't have the capacity to know and understand the ramifications and responsibility of burning down a house, have the means and time alone in which to do so? I can't think of a better one but I don't think your example is a good one.Did Adam have the capacity to know and understand the ramifications and responsibility of causing his descendants to live without access to the tree of life?

May I ask what you think life would have looked like if God had allowed Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden after their disobedience?

Sirus
Oct 18th 2010, 03:36 AM
OK, so you believe that Scripture teaches that our soul and spirit are born again (born of the Spirit), and our bodies are born again at the resurrection.

You believe that the physical resurrection is a second birth because the physical body physically dies, right? Do you also think that the spirit and soul experience a second birth when they are born again because the soul and spirit died? If not, why do they need a second birth like the body does?Well no, because I am already dead in trespasses and sins -as good as dead -dying you will die (shall surely die) -mortal -corrupting -no tree of life. This is what passed from death to life means. I am sealed, born again and have -by faith- passed from death to life. I don't see it in my body yet, but I have hope. I do not hope for what I see, but what I don't see. The body was created dead (dust the spirit animates) with the tree of life to escape its corruption. The spirit/soul were not created dead but are the life that keeps the body alive. The body w/o the spirit is dead. Of course it also needs blood. The soul can die. This of course is like anxiety, depression, fear, as a result of sin. The soul that sins shall die -- he that converted one from error saves a soul from death. These are never said about the spirit.


Would you be willing to expand on this a bit?hmm...well, for an extreme example, someone in administration doesn't need the grace a missionary does. Does that make more sense? Or, what do you want me to expand on?


Right, I did go from mortals to Israel. Sorry about that. Let me try to explain. His view is that only Israel is glorified during the 1,000 years. I think he believes that the gentile mortals remain mortal, living off the tree of life, as long as they live in some kind of submission to Israel.OK. What I see is the spirit poured out on Israel. I don't see glorification.


Care to share more about what the differences are and why they exist?Sure, but not at this moment. Sorry. Soon? It has to do with authority and dominion. A kingdom -king, domain, subjects. The book is a kingdom book. The one purposed kingdom (earthy/spiritual) was 'hindered' and 'divided' when Adam sinned. The book is about bringing the two into one as God originally intended.


Did Adam have the capacity to know and understand the ramifications and responsibility of causing his descendants to live without access to the tree of life?I think so. He was a pretty intelligent fellow it seems. Perfect flesh -as it can be- no degeneration, sin, interbreeding etc....
It's just speculation but, have you notice the interchange between God and Cain was more detailed and personal of sorts? My guess is that it was much like that with Adam but it was not recorded for us to read about. I think if Adam did not know or understand something he would have ask...What? Why? Who? When? Where? How?
Don't you?


May I ask what you think life would have looked like if God had allowed Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden after their disobedience?I haven't given much thought to that. I've thought about -if they had not sinned. Why do you ask? What do you think?

LookingUp
Oct 19th 2010, 05:28 AM
Well no, because I am already dead in trespasses and sins -as good as dead -dying you will die (shall surely die) -mortal -corrupting -no tree of life. This is what passed from death to life means. I am sealed, born again and have -by faith- passed from death to life. I don't see it in my body yet, but I have hope. I do not hope for what I see, but what I don't see. The body was created dead (dust the spirit animates) with the tree of life to escape its corruption. The spirit/soul were not created dead but are the life that keeps the body alive. The body w/o the spirit is dead. Of course it also needs blood. The soul can die. This of course is like anxiety, depression, fear, as a result of sin. The soul that sins shall die -- he that converted one from error saves a soul from death. These are never said about the spirit.OK, I’m trying to follow so bear with me.

You say that the spirit/soul are the life that keeps the body alive. But isn’t it more accurate to say that the spirit (breath of God) allows the body (dust) to come alive and that from this new “body and spirit life” emerges a soul? In other words, the soul doesn’t give the body life (the spirit does that); the soul is the essence of the “body and spirit life.”

I asked you if you thought “born again” meant your spirit and soul are presently “born again” while your body awaits rebirth. You said that this represented your view better than the other option, which is that “born again” means that your body, soul, and spirit are born again only in principle and that you await the reality which will take place at the resurrection. You based your choice on the explanation that the spirit/soul doesn’t get the full measure as Jesus did and that we only have a down payment at this time.

But from what you’ve written above, it sounds like you believe that the entire reality (body, soul and spirit) of being born again happens at the resurrection (and that it must because body, soul and spirit are intricately connected). That as of now, we have the promise, the hope, the faith in this reality (i.e. being born again in body, soul, and spirit). So, when Scripture speaks of us presently being born again (1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23), it is only in principle. And perhaps this includes a measure of grace, (a taste, if you will) which the “down payment” allows us to experience even now.

The concept of the soul dying (because of sin) sounds like a symptom of one who is on the path of permanent physical death.


hmm...well, for an extreme example, someone in administration doesn't need the grace a missionary does. Does that make more sense? Or, what do you want me to expand on?OK, so when you say there are different measures of grace given, you believe this relates to the various levels of ability to act out in faith?

And you believe that this ability to act out in faith is only because of the measure of grace God chose to give? To what extent can people be rewarded for their actions done in faith if it is only possible because of what God arbitrarily gives to them? I guess what I’m wondering is that… are you saying that a man who sells everything to move to another country to preach the gospel has been GIVEN something extra by God so that he can do it?

Or (which makes more sense to me) do you believe that a man willing to give up all he has and move to another country to preach the gospel is given an extra measure of grace to accomplish his action which was done out of faith?


OK. What I see is the spirit poured out on Israel. I don't see glorification.I tend to agree with that conclusion.


Sure, but not at this moment. Sorry. Soon? It has to do with authority and dominion. A kingdom -king, domain, subjects. The book is a kingdom book. The one purposed kingdom (earthy/spiritual) was 'hindered' and 'divided' when Adam sinned. The book is about bringing the two into one as God originally intended.When you say the “book,” do you mean the Bible? Are you saying the Bible is all about bringing the spiritual/earthly kingdom back together again?


I think so. He was a pretty intelligent fellow it seems. Perfect flesh -as it can be- no degeneration, sin, interbreeding etc....
It's just speculation but, have you notice the interchange between God and Cain was more detailed and personal of sorts? My guess is that it was much like that with Adam but it was not recorded for us to read about. I think if Adam did not know or understand something he would have ask...What? Why? Who? When? Where? How?
Don't you?Yes, I agree. That’s why I figure Adam has some responsibility in his choice to disobey God and allow death to enter his line. It seems you think God is to blame. That Adam is only to blame as far as his own physical death is concerned. Why do you feel God (“the parent”) is to blame for death being passed on to all of Adam’s descendants?


I haven't given much thought to that. I've thought about -if they had not sinned. Why do you ask? What do you think?I asked because I assumed that maybe you had given it some thought and I was curious to hear your speculations.

Sirus
Oct 19th 2010, 06:15 AM
I'll get to the rest later...

When you say the “book,” do you mean the Bible? Are you saying the Bible is all about bringing the spiritual/earthly kingdom back together again?Yes.
Here's a little bit about 'difference'.
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/215810-The-measure-of-faith?p=2529907#post2529907
Of course there's a similarity there as well because Jesus also said least in the kingdom of God is greater than John.

Sirus
Oct 20th 2010, 01:06 AM
You say that the spirit/soul are the life that keeps the body alive. But isn’t it more accurate to say that the spirit (breath of God) allows the body (dust) to come alive and that from this new “body and spirit life” emerges a soul? In other words, the soul doesn’t give the body life (the spirit does that); the soul is the essence of the “body and spirit life.”Yes I agree with you. What I was talking about is, when the soul dies because of sin, it can effect the body.


I asked you if you thought “born again” meant your spirit and soul are presently “born again” while your body awaits rebirth. You said that this represented your view better than the other option, which is that “born again” means that your body, soul, and spirit are born again only in principle and that you await the reality which will take place at the resurrection. You based your choice on the explanation that the spirit/soul doesn’t get the full measure as Jesus did and that we only have a down payment at this time.

But from what you’ve written above, it sounds like you believe that the entire reality (body, soul and spirit) of being born again happens at the resurrection (and that it must because body, soul and spirit are intricately connected). That as of now, we have the promise, the hope, the faith in this reality (i.e. being born again in body, soul, and spirit). So, when Scripture speaks of us presently being born again (1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23), it is only in principle. And perhaps this includes a measure of grace, (a taste, if you will) which the “down payment” allows us to experience even now.Yes, this is what I believe. You said
"But from what you’ve written above, it sounds like"
But I don't see any conflict.
"the entire reality (body, soul and spirit) of being born again happens at the resurrection"
because
"the spirit/soul doesn’t get the full measure as Jesus did and that we only have a down payment at this time."


OK, so when you say there are different measures of grace given, you believe this relates to the various levels of ability to act out in faith?

And you believe that this ability to act out in faith is only because of the measure of grace God chose to give? To what extent can people be rewarded for their actions done in faith if it is only possible because of what God arbitrarily gives to them? I guess what I’m wondering is that… are you saying that a man who sells everything to move to another country to preach the gospel has been GIVEN something extra by God so that he can do it?

Or (which makes more sense to me) do you believe that a man willing to give up all he has and move to another country to preach the gospel is given an extra measure of grace to accomplish his action which was done out of faith?The latter.


Yes, I agree. That’s why I figure Adam has some responsibility in his choice to disobey God and allow death to enter his line.But as far as we know, he didn't know anything about this.


It seems you think God is to blame.Why? Because God left out the details? I don't know that He did and I don't know that He didn't. I'm just going by the text which doesn't tell me either way.


That Adam is only to blame as far as his own physical death is concerned.That's what scripture teaches. We are responsible for what we know and are shown mercy for ignorance.


Why do you feel God (“the parent”) is to blame for death being passed on to all of Adam’s descendants?I don't. Blame is negative. His plan is not negative. It is His plan, and He did know they and all men would sin before creating them, but created and made them as He did anyway, for His glory.


I asked because I assumed that maybe you had given it some thought and I was curious to hear your speculations.I'd imagine that's why He made man mortal and gave him the tree of life. So He could keep man from it and they could continue living but not forever. He would not have allowed sin to continue forever. So, what would have happened. He would have destroyed them. Then what? Start over? Since God knows the future I'd say He nipped this in the bud by creating man mortal and giving him the tree of life He could regulate.

LookingUp
Oct 20th 2010, 06:05 AM
Yes I agree with you. What I was talking about is, when the soul dies because of sin, it can effect the body.OK


Yes, this is what I believe. You said
"But from what you’ve written above, it sounds like"
But I don't see any conflict.
"the entire reality (body, soul and spirit) of being born again happens at the resurrection"
because
"the spirit/soul doesn’t get the full measure as Jesus did and that we only have a down payment at this time."OK, I think I get what you’re saying.


The latter.OK


But as far as we know, he didn't know anything about this.Well, true, we don’t know for sure either way.


Why? Because God left out the details? I don't know that He did and I don't know that He didn't. I'm just going by the text which doesn't tell me either way.

That's what scripture teaches. We are responsible for what we know and are shown mercy for ignorance.

I don't. Blame is negative. His plan is not negative. It is His plan, and He did know they and all men would sin before creating them, but created and made them as He did anyway, for His glory.OK. Thanks for your explanation.


I'd imagine that's why He made man mortal and gave him the tree of life. So He could keep man from it and they could continue living but not forever. He would not have allowed sin to continue forever. So, what would have happened. He would have destroyed them. Then what? Start over? Since God knows the future I'd say He nipped this in the bud by creating man mortal and giving him the tree of life He could regulate.Thanks for sharing.

I don’t think we’re far off from one another in our thinking in many of these things. This discussion has sharpened some of my understanding of the views I hold. If I come up with more questions, I’ll be sure to ask. :)

Pillar
Oct 21st 2010, 03:54 AM
That which is physical cannot be infinite. And God is infinite.

Isiah 66:1-2. 1 Kings 8:27. Job 11:7-9.

God is a an infinite spirit. John 4:24. Romans 1:20. 1 Timothy 1:13.

percho
Oct 21st 2010, 05:00 AM
Lookingup, Sirus and anyone else that wants.

Except a man be born again.

In the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus is there anything said about sin or the sinful nature of man? All that is said is that man is born flesh and that flesh cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. Paul says the exact same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 He shows that physical, earthy, natural, that which was created the living soul Adam is flesh that is corruptible. Nothing is said about sin or a sinful nature. This flesh of John 3 Paul calls flesh and blood in verse 50 and states that it cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Because flesh is corruptible it is called sinful flesh in Romans 8:3 By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh or John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh. Because it is imperfect being corruptible it has to be born again of the spirit. 1 Cor.15:45 last part the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. John 5:21 1st part For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. Jesus and Paul because he got his info from Jesus both say we have to go through the same process or an instant change at his coming to see, enter or inherit the kingdom of God.

Tell me where these scriptures are out of context or wrong.

petepet
Oct 21st 2010, 05:17 AM
That's simply not true. He had to come like us. He could not come incorruptible and spiritual. He had to be a man. Many passages speak of this. That's all that passage says. It does not suggest that He did not have a body prior to becoming a natural, corruptible, mortal, man. It says nothing of the sort.

But there is nowhere in Scripture that says that the Son had a physical body prior to the incarnation. Indeed He shared 'the glory which He had with the Father before the world was'. So any suggestion that He had a physical body is pure speculation or the result of doubtful exegesis.

percho
Oct 21st 2010, 03:55 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Sirus View Post
That's simply not true. He had to come like us. He could not come incorruptible and spiritual. He had to be a man. Many passages speak of this. That's all that passage says. It does not suggest that He did not have a body prior to becoming a natural, corruptible, mortal, man. It says nothing of the sort.

If anything the bible says that natural, corruptible, mortal, man looks like the incorruptible, immortal, spiritual God. Who is to say to be made in the image does not include form and shape. When the bible speaks of God in a personified manner he has or should I say we have his attributes in a limited manner. We were made in an incomplete physical image of God and the Word became flesh for the purpose of death that we could be finished in the spiritual image of his Son which takes place after his coming at our change/resurrection. See post above. Once, it was appointed unto man, to die. That included the Word that was made flesh and would also have to include Enoch and Elijah because of preeminence. That is why it is in bold in previous post.

As far as the OP goes I don't know about physical but I do think God, even pre incarnation Word had form and shape.

Sirus
Oct 22nd 2010, 12:58 AM
Lookingup, Sirus and anyone else that wants.

Except a man be born again.

In the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus is there anything said about sin or the sinful nature of man? All that is said is that man is born flesh and that flesh cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. Paul says the exact same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 He shows that physical, earthy, natural, that which was created the living soul Adam is flesh that is corruptible. Nothing is said about sin or a sinful nature. This flesh of John 3 Paul calls flesh and blood in verse 50 and states that it cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Because flesh is corruptible it is called sinful flesh in Romans 8:3 By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh or John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh. Because it is imperfect being corruptible it has to be born again of the spirit. 1 Cor.15:45 last part the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. John 5:21 1st part For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. Jesus and Paul because he got his info from Jesus both say we have to go through the same process or an instant change at his coming to see, enter or inherit the kingdom of God.

Tell me where these scriptures are out of context or wrong.

"Because flesh is corruptible it is called sinful flesh in Romans 8:3 By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh"

Sirus
Oct 22nd 2010, 01:01 AM
But there is nowhere in Scripture that says that the Son had a physical body prior to the incarnation.Yes, I said that a few times already.


Indeed He shared 'the glory which He had with the Father before the world was'.This does not mean He didn't have a body. Said that a few times too.


So any suggestion that He had a physical body is pure speculation.Yes, I said that a few times already.

Sirus
Oct 22nd 2010, 01:03 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Sirus View Post
That's simply not true. He had to come like us. He could not come incorruptible and spiritual. He had to be a man. Many passages speak of this. That's all that passage says. It does not suggest that He did not have a body prior to becoming a natural, corruptible, mortal, man. It says nothing of the sort.

If anything the bible says that natural, corruptible, mortal, man looks like the incorruptible, immortal, spiritual God. Who is to say to be made in the image does not include form and shape. When the bible speaks of God in a personified manner he has or should I say we have his attributes in a limited manner. We were made in an incomplete physical image of God and the Word became flesh for the purpose of death that we could be finished in the spiritual image of his Son which takes place after his coming at our change/resurrection. See post above. Once, it was appointed unto man, to die. That included the Word that was made flesh and would also have to include Enoch and Elijah because of preeminence. That is why it is in bold in previous post.

As far as the OP goes I don't know about physical but I do think God, even pre incarnation Word had form and shape.I agree, but just wanted to point out that not all physically died and we know many will not when He appears.

percho
Oct 22nd 2010, 04:28 AM
I agree, but just wanted to point out that not all physically died and we know many will not when He appears.

What happened to their corruptible bodies and were they given spritual bodies prior to the resurrection of Jesus? preeminence?
Give a little detail on context. I'm saying sin causes death and decay/corruption follows death therefore being made in the likeness of sinful flesh translates being made corruptible. Therefore David speaking of the resurrection of Jesus can say my flesh shall rest in hope. Three days and three nights? Maybe John 11:39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days.

Relative to God and his kingdom would something corruptible be considered imperfect?

Sirus
Oct 22nd 2010, 06:06 AM
What happened to their corruptible bodiesIt doesn't say


Give a little detail on context.which context?


I'm saying sin causes death and decay/corruptionAdam was created natural, mortal, corruptible -1Cor 15.


Relative to God and his kingdom would something corruptible be considered imperfect?sure

percho
Oct 23rd 2010, 04:14 AM
It doesn't say

which context? I think you were saying my quote of Rom. 8:3 in post 222 wasn't in context.

Adam was created natural, mortal, corruptible -1Cor 15. I was trying to clarify that context with this statement. I'm saying sin causes death and decay/corruption follows death therefore being made in the likeness of sinful flesh translates being made corruptible. Does being sent in the likness of sinful flesh or the Word was made flesh or as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, no more to return to corruption, imply and/or state that Jesus born of Mary was born of corruptible flesh?

sure If the answer to that ridiculously long question is yes, which I think it has to be, would that imply an imperfection? Maybe a better question would be was that witch was perfect made something imperfect or something incorruptible / corruptible or that was made sin for us who knew no sin?

Sirus
Oct 23rd 2010, 05:00 AM
I said it was wrong. Romans 8:3 does not say flesh is called sinful because it is corruptible. That would be impossible since Adam was made from dust -corruptible and needed the tree of life to escape that corruption. Jesus' flesh was the same flesh. Yes, sin caused death -no tree of life. While Adam had the tree of life -no death. Perfect was not made imperfect. Incorruptible was not made corruptible. Unless of course you are talking about God manifested in the flesh. Likeness of sinful flesh means God took on our nature, proving it is not sinful at birth. He took on the reality of our flesh -law of sin in our members -body of this death.

percho
Oct 23rd 2010, 05:06 AM
I said it was wrong. Romans 8:3 does not say flesh is called sinful because it is corruptible. That would be impossible since Adam was made from dust -corruptible and needed the tree of life to escape that corruption. Jesus' flesh was the same flesh. Yes, sin caused death -no tree of life. While Adam had the tree of life -no death. Perfect was not made imperfect. Incorruptible was not made corruptible. Unless of course you are talking about God manifested in the flesh. Likeness of sinful flesh means God took on our nature, proving it is not sinful at birth. He took on the reality of our flesh -law of sin in our members -body of this death.

That is what I asked. Was God manfested in corruptibe flesh?

petepet
Oct 23rd 2010, 04:24 PM
Yes, I said that a few times already.

This does not mean He didn't have a body. Said that a few times too.

Yes, I said that a few times already.

Lol i didn't write my post for you :-)) But take comfort in the thought that it confirms that in those cases u were right :-))

I can't always say that about your postings :-))

petepet
Oct 23rd 2010, 04:26 PM
That is what I asked. Was God manfested in corruptibe flesh?

Yes, we have no reason for thinking that the body of Jesus Christ was not corruptible. It was simply that He was 'not allowed to see corruption' Acts 2.27.

petepet
Oct 23rd 2010, 04:44 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Sirus View Post
That's simply not true. He had to come like us. He could not come incorruptible and spiritual. He had to be a man. Many passages speak of this. That's all that passage says. It does not suggest that He did not have a body prior to becoming a natural, corruptible, mortal, man. It says nothing of the sort.

If anything the bible says that natural, corruptible, mortal, man looks like the incorruptible, immortal, spiritual God. Who is to say to be made in the image does not include form and shape. When the bible speaks of God in a personified manner he has or should I say we have his attributes in a limited manner. We were made in an incomplete physical image of God and the Word became flesh for the purpose of death that we could be finished in the spiritual image of his Son which takes place after his coming at our change/resurrection. See post above. Once, it was appointed unto man, to die. That included the Word that was made flesh and would also have to include Enoch and Elijah because of preeminence. That is why it is in bold in previous post.

As far as the OP goes I don't know about physical but I do think God, even pre incarnation Word had form and shape.

There were times when God took on form and shape, for example when He appeared to Abraham and Jacob. But the Old Testament tendency is to depict God in such a way that He does not have form and shape, but is rather like fire. We must remember the difficulty of describing something that was outside human experience.. As He is in Himself God is Spirit (John 4.24). And if God were to appear in any way that was a genuine representation of Himself He would fill the universe. He can be omnipresent precisely because He is non-physical. Any other view would be pantheism.

The Son of course was born with a human body. It is in order to accommodate this fact that He is shown both as at the right hand of God in His human body, and in the midst of the throne as the Lamb. That is why He both shares the Father's throne and sits on His own throne. But neither really sit on a throne (they would get a bit tired of it). That is an earthly way of describing His sovereignty. It is given in vision in order to help us understand.

Sirus
Oct 23rd 2010, 05:32 PM
Lol i didn't write my post for you :-)) But take comfort in the thought that it confirms that in those cases u were right :-))

I can't always say that about your postings :-))You didn't address anyone in particular, so yes you were indeed posting for me. And I didn't ask what you think about my postings.

Sirus
Oct 23rd 2010, 05:36 PM
Yes, we have no reason for thinking that the body of Jesus Christ was not corruptible. It was simply that He was 'not allowed to see corruption' Acts 2.27.Did he lose his baby teeth? Did his hair fall out and get replaced? Dead skin scale off and get replaced? He was indeed aging. He wasn't born 30 years old. Acts 2:27 is the grave. He could not have been corruptible and not see it. He was a man and he didn't have the tree of life.

percho
Oct 25th 2010, 04:44 PM
Therefore being of corruptible flesh (that is, that which is born of the flesh is flesh) Jesus the Word made flesh would have to be made/changed from something imperfect (that is corruptible flesh) to something perfect before being in the presence of the Father in heaven? That is a question. That which is born of the spirit is spirit? That is also a question.

Jesus the Christ firstborn from the dead (with emphasis on first) was presented before the Father the morrow after the resurrection see John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God. (to be accepted for us) compare to Leviticus 23:10,11 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. (That we may be born as he is) See Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (born as he was). Once again. That which is born of the spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I say, ye must be born again.

The real question is will we (as living souls that were made corruptible) have a spirit body and when.