George, you raise a subtle point!
The human body of flesh is nothing other than the human soul appearing and acting in space-time: “human bodies of flesh” are contents of human souls.
If “the soul is a divine body”, as you claim, then necessarily the human body of flesh is divine as well.
My point is only that a human soul as such is not divine: The human soul can become divine because the Son of God assumed a human soul, and thereby a human body of flesh.
If the soul is a divine body … then necessarily the chair in which the body in which the soul sits IS DIVINE AS WELL.
All hail the divine chair, that holds the divine body that holds the divine soul!
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14).
Jesus said: “I am the vine”.
Do NOT prune the sacred shrubs!
I’m confused. Was no soul divine before Christ’s coming then?
I think that this is all a bit of a mystery! We have faith that a soul and the spiritual world exists, but no scientific evidence. We make a rather large deal out of the “image of God” idea, but it’s not clear to me why we do that and reject a literal week, or rib, in the rest of the creation story.
Our intelligence and compassion and decision making abilities are what they are. We can compare and contrast ourselves with animals. However, the extrapolation of what these things mean in the long run is unclear to us.
Thanks.
It is, I agree!
The very concept of “scientific evidence” assumes the existence of observation and the human observer, and thereby the soul and spiritual world: the physical universe cannot be defined except in relation to something that is not the physical universe.
In Genesis 9:3-6 is stated that humans should not kill other humans but are allowed to use animals for food. This is the very foundation of Law and sort of anticipation of the Decalogue.
The reason Genesis gives for this commandment of God is:
“for in the image of God has God made mankind” (Genesis 9:6).
It is not said: “for God created in seven days” or “because God made the woman from a man’s rib”.
You are fully right! By biological means alone there is now way to establish why humans deserve a dignity and have rights animals don’t.
If we dispose of the fact that God became human, we get rid of the criterion allowing us to discern what makes humanity and human motherhood precious and unique: If God did not incarnate everything is permitted.
Good question indeed!
My answer is:
Before the fall “human souls” could be considered divine in the sense that, provided humans did not sin, God would directly have taken them to heaven and divinized them at the end of life.
On the basis of Hebrews 7, Melchizedek can be considered such a “divinized human”: a “contemporary of Adam” who didn’t sin (where ‘Adam’ denotes the first human sinner); Melchizedek was taken by God to heaven, and later came again as High Priest to found the order of Priesthood which Jesus Christ is priest after.
Thank you for your note. However, this is an assumption that we are spiritual.
I’ll address the rest soon 
Thanks.
Melchizedek could also be Shem, the son of Noah. See wiki article about Chazal. Shem was the King of Salem. Melchi, king and zedek, righteousness. Being blessed by his father Noah to carry on what it means to be righteous. The simple fact that he lived for 500 years after the Flood, and also the last living relative of Abraham, who was a direct descendant, Abraham knew who he was. But after 500 years, no one else would appreciate that fact, and it would seem Melchizedek had no father or mother as all the stories about Noah and the Flood had become cultural myths.
If there was a source of written and oral tradition before the Greek influence of philosophy given consideration to the reality of a time before the Flood, where Noah and Shem were actual humans, why are we still insisting on a non-flood event? The common understanding is that life came out of a universal body of water. Is that not indicative of a global Flood? The oldest “writings” can only go back to the Flood, and no further. The only pre flood civilization left in observable form, would be Egypt, but post flood Egypt seemed to have started over, and the pre-flood knowledge vanished.
This image or connection to a most high divine form led to the creation of all early religious endeavors, but no answers came of such attempts. I tend to think that even Jesus would not have had the body of the so called culturally accepted god. If Jesus would have associated with the outcast of the earth, then they would have been repulsed by a perfect body. It seemed Jesus fit right in, so more than likely, and in keeping with the fact that he physically endured every sickness and disease that can be inflicted on humankind, that is exactly how Jesus looked and existed in human form, yet did not give into temptation and sin against God. Jesus having a perfect body and God image while human, before he received a spiritual one after the resurrection can not be true. In fact Jesus’ divinity was kept secret, and even his miracles forgotten by the time he was sent to trial, and condemned to death. The first writings had to take this non-interesting human and make him acceptable to God, even before such an account would be acceptable to humanity. There was nothing about being God in the flesh, but about A human who was the actual God. Later the additional accounts filled in how God became flesh. The truth came out despite false accounts being passed around to paint Jesus as just a product of sinful humanity.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, the only humans with this God image after the Flood would have been any of the four wives of Noah and his 3 sons. We are not told anything about them, nor would this image neccessarily have been passed on genetically. Albeit Shem did live 500 years, and was considered as having an eternal, without human parents, existence. He was the last priest of the most high, as that was not passed on to his descendant Abraham. God did promise Abraham that his descendants would be blessed and chosen by God to carry out God’s blessings on earth. God made a covenant with Moses. God then came in the flesh, at the right time in history to allow a future restoration to the image that Adam lost. That was Paul’s message to the world. Paul said only in physical death would the God image be received.
The assumption is that “there is scientific evidence”.
From this assumption it follows that we are embodied spirits!
You might be the only pro-evolutionist on Bio-Logos who thinks there is scientific evidence that we are spirits.
I do not follow you. Being able to replicate and test the physical foes not imply spiritual existence impinges on our world, does it? Thanks.
That Melchizedek “had no father or mother” is stated in Hebrews 7:3:
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
The author of Hebrews knew the Old Testament very well and was aware that Shem was the son of Noah. So Hebrews is clearly not referring to Shem when describing the character Melchizedek.
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:25)
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. (John 6:54-56).
By drinking the “wine” of the “vine” (the “sacred blood” of “Jesus”) we become Jesus himself, and our body the perfect image of God. The Son of God became flesh in order we can reach eternal life and become God.
George,
I do not think what you claim I think.
So, I apologize for repeating again what I think:
As far as we believe we can acquire knowledge by “scientific evidence”, we acknowledge that we are embodied spirits.
Faith tells us we are embodied spirits… philosophical wagering convinces us that we are embodied spirits.
Science doesn’t do it because it is beyond the scope of the scientific method.
Free will and conservation of personal identity are first in the logical order and prerequisites of science.
“Being able to replicate and test the physical” implies the conservation of the personal identity of the human experimenter. And this means that the human experimenter does exist outside space-time to some extent, that is, cannot be reduced to a bunch of physical processes going on in time.
Accordingly, “testing the physical” requires spiritual existence underpinning the behavior of the experimenter:
No spiritual existence, no scientific evidence!
Antoine, I do not have any first hand experience excavating human burials that are >10,000 yrs. old. (I have helped professional archeologists excavate Anasazi Indian burials in the American West that are ~5,000 yrs. old.). Rather, I rely on the expertise of recognized paleoarcheologists such as Ian Tattersall, Simmon Conway Morris, Jared Diamond, etc. They are satisfied that the carefully-crafted grave goods and cave paintings DO differentiate Cro-Magnon from Neanderthal and DO meet your criteria for ‘accountability relationship’.
They also claim this is evidence for a Great Leap Forward.
You (rightfully) expect others to acknowledge your expertise in Quantum Physics. Why do you NOT acknowledge the conclusions reached by the experts cited above? Aboriginal Americans acknowledged accountability to the Great Spirit without help from the Old or New Testament. Why be so confident that this could not be true for our Cro Magnon ancestors long before Moses appeared on the scene??
respectfully,
Al Leo
Very good Ptolemaic cosmology.
I fully agree.
I agree as well. But one should add:
No embodied spirits, no science!
What is a spirit? Scientifically speaking?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.