OK, I will try just one more time to address this topic. Do you expect God to be embodied? Embodiment is limiting and God is unlimited. God has brought the universe into existence through thoughts which is another way of saying through consciousness. God brought us into existence through the embodiment of self -aware consciousness which developed slowly through the process of evolution. In the fulness of time, God sent Jesus into the world to reveal the true nature of God and provide a pathway to Salvation.
Upon death our spirit, consciousness, leaves our bodies and reunites with the unlimited consciousness of God. This collective consciousness is the final Kingdom of God in Heaven. This does not mean that we will not recognize loved ones or share thoughts and love with them, but we will be witnesses and participants in God’s work throughout this universe and perhaps untold numbers of other universes. Of course, this is highly speculative, but it gives me comfort.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
54
His consciousness is not ours, although ours is in His.
So evolution is taken into account as grounding our species having acquired the capacity for self aware consciousness and yet that same self aware consciousness is thought to persist without a body after death. If that is so where and how would that immortal self awareness have resided before it’s becoming embodied at birth? Or else how can birth create that which requires no body beyond death?
I find it more puzzling than comforting but different strokes for different folks I suppose.
God is a Trinity and I expect the Son to be embodied.
Where do you get this? The Bible said the world was brought into existence through his word. Granted that might be metaphorical and anthropomorphic, but nowhere does the Bible say the world was thought into existence.
That’s all fine and you are of course entitled to your speculations, but some of us prefer to begin our speculations with what the Bible says, not just what we imagine.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is a reference to Jesus in the first sentence of the Gospel of John. It also reveals something about the nature of God. The Greek “word” for word is logos, and by extension, refers to language. Since language is the outer manifestation of inner consciousness, this opening sentence could be interpreted as a declaration that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s consciousness. This also implies that God is unembodied, unlimited, consciousness.
Part of the difficulty of comprehending the power of consciousness is that it is one of the most profound mysteries of science. The idea that reality is dependent on conscious observation has found increasing support among physicists as more and more evidence is found in quantum research that the building blocks of nature are only probabilities until they are measured by a self-aware conscious observer. Therefore, it is not so farfetched to conclude that the universe resides in the consciousness of God. After all, God did bring it into existence.
The other thing that often gets left out of these conversations is the word that the NIV translates as “childbearing” is actually the word to conceive (as shown in your screenshot). Now, conception is not usually painful! So what is this talking about?
I think it’s talking about the impact of sin on our relationships with our children. Certainly in my own relationship with my own daughter, the greatest pain I’ve experienced wasn’t the physical pain of childbirth, but the pain of sinning against my daughter. (And we have a good, loving, happy relationship!) But my own sin is where my deepest regrets and griefs are.
(Which isn’t to minimise physical suffering, of course – I just don’t think that that is what the verse is talking about.)
Interesting observation.
However, conception is a long way away from the relationship that comes first through child-bearing. I don’t see a way that your interpretation gets closer to the text, in spite of the devastating impact sin has on relationships.
You might want to check on scholarship on the decisions to translate the Hebrew word into “child bearing” in so many English versions. Do translators know less now than St. Jerome or the 17th century translators?
KJV says “conception”
NLT says “pregnancy”
NASB has a footnote saying, “lit in your pregnancy”
ASV says “conception”
YLT says “conception”
So certainly it’s not a monolithic “childbirth” or “child-bearing.” That precise word is only used two other times in the text, in Ruth 4:13 (Ruth conceives Obed after Boaz goes to her) and Hosea 9:11 (there will be no birth, no pregnancy, and no conception). In both of those cases, it very clearly means conception. And the root it comes from, used dozens of times, also very clearly means conception.
I don’t know where to look to read up on translators’ decisions – can you point me in the right direction? My only guess is that they changed it because conception isn’t generally painful and childbirth generally is? But I’m happy to reconsider if I can find more info!!
But it’s not. Language is a complex semiotic system. Computers use languages to communicate with other computers and are not conscious. Furthermore some animals use semiotic systems that are rightfully considered at least proto-languages, and many other species’ brains use thalamocortical loops to integrate information across various areas of the brain, which is what scientists claim is the basis for consciousness. Does that mean all conscious species live forever in your paradigm? Consciousness is not a feature unique to humanity and God.
Clearly not the meeting of gametes, since the Hebrews didn’t know about that.
The word translated childbirth וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ and linked with sorrow could possibly refer more generally to having children. But the word linked with pain, תֵּֽלְדִ֣י refers to the physical act of giving birth.
Oh, but it is. The language that computers use is programed language, Computers do not have inner thoughts, nor do they understand the meaning of anything. Understanding and meaning are the purview of self-aware human beings who sometimes program computers with math and statistics to string together zeros and ones to transfer information to other computers. Language translation is another way that computers seemingly use language, but they don’t understand the meaning of the words. It is the programmers that understand.
The mystery of self-aware consciousness is much more profound than most people realize, even scientists. Most simply believe that somehow it just emerged when the brain developed enough synapses and organization. Many believe that computers will become self-aware when they reach that level of development.
In the January issue of Scientific American magazine, on page 48 there is an article titled “The Universe Is Not Locally Real.” I call it to your attention because of what it says about the profound mystery concerning the conscious measurement of physical phenomena.
Anyone who has been around here long enough will know that I like the suggestion that QM may be hinting that the fundamental reality of the universe is information. The infinite mind of God fits that pretty well.
I don’t think this actually means what you think it does. Jesus was still very much physical when he ascended from the disciples…the bible doesn’t say he suddenly changed appearance as he began to rise into the air. As I also stated previously, Jesus had already ascended to the Father prior to meeting in the upper room and speaking directly to doubting Thomas when he said, “put your hand into my side…”
Jesus ascended to the father during the day after he met Mary in the garden, where he said “don’t touch me I have not yet ascended the father” and then meeting in the upper room when he was quite happy for Thomas to physically touch him.
The reason for this if you go back to the sanctuary service is because according to this service the sacrifice had to be accepted…so Jesus attended the Father so that His sacrifice was accepted too. We have to remember, the Old Testament Sanctuary Service pointed towards the coming of the messiah. Everything about that Service had a dual application (past and future).
The spiritual body that you talk about I think refers to us being transformed from sinful earthly bodies that came about as a consequence of sin, into heavenly perfect bodies that Adam and Eve had when they were first created. The bible speaks in numerous places of the restoration of mankind back to our former glory…therefore Adam and Eve had glorious bodies when the were created and before the fall. Many Christians use the fact that Adam and Eve saw that they were naked and covered themselves with leaves from the garden as evidence in support of the sudden change in their appearance. True they were clothed in light/glory prior to the fall…however, that is also an interesting thing about Jesus after he was raised…no one recognised him and I think that is for the same reason as Adam and Eve did not view themselves as being naked before the fall.
this is simply referring to sinful bodies…perishable in this instance is talking about mortality and death. Bodies that are sinful cannot possess the kingdom of God.
We know that when we are raised from the dead (those who are not alive at the second coming), we are transformed into perfect heavenly bodies as those of Adam and Eve when they were first created. I believe the reason for the heavenly referencing is simply to illustrate sinless (without sin) because heaven is not corrupted by sin…only this earth is.
To be really honest, its rather simple all of this stuff about bodies…God created Adam and Eve (a man and a women) in physical sinless bodies. Its blatantly obvious that when God talks about restoring mankind back to Himself and back to the former glory that existed before the fall, that is exactly what is going to happen. People seem to get so hung up on trying to read into bible texts meanings to suit non theological assumptions that they forget what the plan of salvation is actually about.
It goes like this:
God created Adam and Eve and all the world perfect
Mankind was tempted, and sinned, and all of that creation was tarnished with sin
God enacted a PLAN OF SALVATION TO RESTORE HIS CREATION BACK UNTO HIMSELF…TO ITS FORMER GLORY
We must focus on exactly what was lost when sin entered this world, and that is easily understood when one looks at the overall theme of the Bible.
BTW, as an offhand comment that I’m sure a nonchristian would make regarding spiritual bodies…has anyone ever managed to find any references in the bible where spirits toil and tend gardens? I know they can enter people and pigs…but that is possession of another soul. That is not what is happening in heaven after the second coming.
I think 1 Cor 15 means what it says and not what you change it to. It is the same with Genesis, where you simply ignore the parts which don’t fit. What it actually says fits the evidence of what we see all around us and I have no need to change the text to make it fit this nonsensical fantasy of yours. God said to Adam and Eve that on the day they ate the fruit they would die. I have no reason to make God a liar because all the evidence shows that physical death existed for billions of years before Adam and Eve, so that is simply not what God was talking about. Likewise the Paul says the resurrection is to a spiritual body made of the stuff of heaven and not a physical/natural body made of the stuff of the earth. And I have no reason to make Paul a liar because all the evidence shows the resurrected Jesus was not of the earth. I will stick to what the Bible actually says because it agrees with reality and your fantasy world has no appeal to me.
1 Corinthians 15 says no to this quite clearly.
45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Our resurrection does not make us like Adam with a physical/natural body but like Jesus who in the resurrection was assuredly a body but it was a spiritual body not a physical/natural body and thus quite different from the first Adam. And I certainly do not think that the change in Adam and Eve due to the fall was a physical change in appearance or that our bodies had become something evil. This frankly sounds like something which has origins in the justification for racism – identifying moral inferiority with physical differences. There is much greater evil and corruption in such ways of thinking and distorting the Bible. And to that I definitely say, no thank you.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
70
As He has been from eternity in an infinity of overlapping incarnations, right?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
71
They new about seeds, samen, semen. They’d have twigged pollen, spores intuitively, if not explicitly for plant breeding.
For those who dont believe we are taken to heaven with real bodies…how do you explain Jesus and satan arguing over Moses body in
Jude 19Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee
I think Pauls statements in 1Cor 15 are not actually meaning we have only a spiritual body in the resurrection…otherwise why the need to argue over Moses body in Jude 1…according to this view, it was being thrown out anyway!