Animals do not seek Knowledge. They may have Knowledge but not because they have sought it. Seeking requires ability to understand what one lacks.
Knowledge is the original Sin referred to in the Bible.
No I read the Bible for myself. I have no interest whatsoever in the edited retelling by the Baptists.
Since you didnât read it in Greek, thereâs little use in blocking out what the Greek scholarship says.
Incorrect. I did read it in Greek as I demonstrated above. Did you not understand that part because it was Greek, or do you just conveniently ignore what people write when it disagrees with what you want to believe.
The resurrection involves the transformation of the body, from one subject to corruption, into a glorious body that is incorruptible. This is based on the Gospels and Paulâs epistles, and these are all consistent and clear in the teaching.
What I think gives some people a problem is the term âbodyâ - a resurrected being has a body, but this is transformed - we need to contemplate on this term.
This is a good point @GJDS. I think the resistance to the concept that the physical body is inhabited by the immortal ethereal body comes from the anathema of Origen in 543 AD.
If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for the seraphim a seraph: in short, like all the superior powers, let him be anathema.
If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will rise spherical in form and unlike our present form, let him be anathema.
These declarations by the emperor are in direct conflict with Paul, as you have written. I ask enlightened researchers to ask two important questions - With what motivation and with what authority did Justinian act when he damned early Christian wisdom?
Ref: Wenzel, Franz Die entschleierte Aura p. 110, Print
You may have misunderstood my comment Shawn. I am saying the physical body is transformed into another body that can function as a body but not subject to our current bodily limitations. Thus Christ could walk and talk and eat with His disciples, who considered Him just another human until He revealed Himself as the resurrected Christ.
Spiritual entities are not resurrected, nor transformed, so there is no teaching in the bible that we are a physical entity with some other âsomethingâ and orthodoxy has discussed this in detail, especially that of Christ as fully human and fully divine.
Dear @GJDSI have posted this discussion before at
Yes, Christ had a fully human physical body from His parents Mary and Joseph, and a fully divine soul/spirit from God.
excuse me, where is the conflict with Paul?
Paul doesnât say that Jesus or the Word of God becomes like any of the angels. And Paul certainly doesnât say that we will be resurrected in a spherical shape or in a shape unlike our physical bodies. Paul is very specific about the difference between the physical/natural body and the resurrected spiritual body. The physical/natural body is perishable, weak, and made of the stuff of the earth. The spiritual body is imperishable, powerful, and made of the stuff of heaven. Paul says nothing whatsoever about shape. And Jesus had a human shape and was at least capable of being recognized when He wanted to be. Perhaps declaring any difference of opinion on this to be anathema or heretical is a bit over the top, but there is no conflict with Paul.
There are OTHER passages in the gospels which say that we become like the angels (at least in some respects): Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, Luke 20:36.
Oh and there is nothing in Paul to support your idea of âthe physical body is inhabited by the immortal ethereal body.â Paul doesnât say the spiritual body inhabits the physical, nor does he use the words immortal or ethereal. Furthermore, Paul is pretty clear that the imperishable, glorious, powerful spiritual body is the result of resurrection and not something we simply have by default. It is not well explained anywhere, but there are hints in various places of something spiritual existing before the resurrection which not so glorious or powerful, called a ghost perhaps â I think there is the suggestion by contrast that this can be described as a dead spirit.
There is the question of when the resurrection occurs? There are passages which point to both something that can happen during life when we are born of the Holy Spirit and other passages which point to an event when everyone is raised from the dead. Personally I think the inconsistency is largely because, for most people (one exception being Jesus), it is outside our space-time continuum. I am certainly NOT a believer in the idea that a select few are brought back to live on the Earth again in immortal physical bodies under the iron rule of a tyrannical Jesus lording it over the Earth. That sounds more like science fiction to me â like the God Emperor of Dune.
Mitchell, I said that these two proclamations conflict with Paul, not my claim that man is inhabited by an ethereal spirit or ghost as you said.
- If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for the seraphim a seraph: in short, like all the superior powers, let him be anathema. This contradicts everything we know about about the risen Lord (2 Corinthians 3:17). Of course Jesus is now a spirit and King of all the superior powers.
5. If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will rise spherical in form and unlike our present form, let him be anathema. This contradicts what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:44 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-53. I have shown you an image of what this spiritual body looks like with a spherical aura.
I donât see the conflict with Paul. Paul says nothing about shape especially in the passages you mentioned. In 1 Cor 15:49, he says âJust as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.â But this sounds more like Romans 8:29, where the talk of being âconformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren,â clearly isnât talking about shape, but is probably more a reference to being created in the image of God.
Perhaps I misunderstood your âI think the resistance to the concept that the physical body is inhabited by the immortal ethereal body comes from the anathema of Origen in 543 AD,â to mean that you thought such a thing, since I donât know where else the words could have come from.
And I really donât see why you think that picture has any authority for the beliefs of Paul let alone anyone else. Besides I really doubt the anathema of Origen was referring to a spherically shaped aura or halo.
I think what Paul was saying; what was currently understood of the afterlife, was Not what happened to Jesus. Paul seemed to be the only one to grasp that Jesus was the promise given to Abraham, That God would provide Jesus as the only sacrifice demanded. Not because a sacrifice is demanded, because Genesis 3 does not specify a sacrifice. It was giving up oneâs life of their own volition. It was not suicide either. Jesus prayed sweating blood that Godâs will in the matter would be changed. I guess only universalist or those who say Jesus was only God, would be literally saying that God committed suicide. The other fact is the cross, nor the roman sword killed Jesus. He accomplished what humans attempt, but before the human body itself gave up itâs life. Jesus as God said, âit is finishedâ by the command of the Word. Only God could take life before the body itself gave that life up.
That is the testimony whereby Paul could say with certainty that Jesus was who he claimed to be. Back to the claim of the day: being deification by Death. Paul clearly said that is not what happened. In fact he pointed out that this fleshly body would not exist in the afterlife. Upon death, we would have form immediately. It would not be deification, but that the flesh would be sown like the seed of a plant and the seed would stop existing. The new body was not immediate either as in instant deification. There would not be a new spiritual body until the body of the church was completed and all bodies would be taken from the earth, and united with God in Heaven. It is not the bodily resurrection of the original flesh, but it would be a bodily resurrection as a one time event for the church. I doubt any one knows if this is right or wrong. My guess is he took his cue from when Jesus led all who died in Abrahamâs Faith out of captivity, before the advent of Jesus, as a single event. They could not go to Heaven because Jesus had to die first, and present what was accomplished so humankind could be restored to Godâs presence. Jesus said there were many dwelling places in heaven, but he still needed to make a place for fallen humans. IMO the preparation could only be done after and because of what the obedience to the cross accomplished or finished.
That is why Paul said sin entered the world by Adam, but Jesus would be the one to restore humankind to God. I agree that Jesus before the Cross had a fallen body in the image of Adam, and was fully God. For 3 days, Jesus had a ghost body, which was intermediate between the former and the final body after a visit to God, and a place for humankind to go to. His mission accomplished, Jesus had a body in the image of God, and was fully human. The firstborn Son of God in the image of God in glorified physical flesh.
Paul likened what would happen to us, as the same that happened to Jesus for 3 days. Humans would have to wait in an intermediate state, until the whole body of the church, was presented as a single bride. So Paul taught that we would all receive our fully restored body in the image of God at a single event in time in the future. It would only happen upon the last human who is called makes the last choice to become part of the church.
That is where we get choice being a single event, pre trib, and pre millenia. The church was not the only restoration. The last restoration is the descendants of Abraham or the chance for the Jewish heritage to get a chance to rule the earth for the last 1000 years of itâs existence.
Now there is a set of humans called the church, and a set called Godâs chosen people. If we say the Jews do not get a chance because they rejected Christ and accepted responsibility for his blood, by what authority do we claim that? While Jesus completed both the restoration of mankind, and the restoration of Abrahamâs descendants, we cannot reject all Jews that came after Christ. While John the Revelator said there would be 144,000 sealed in the last days, we still have the whole nation past, present, and future that Paul in agreement with the prophecy of the dry bones, that at the end of time, the Nation of Israel in itâs entire history will be restored. I assume even those who died in the 40 years between the promised land and Egypt. This resurrection is the whole set of Jews, entirely separate from the churchâs resurrection, which is a majority Gentile bride. There is a set of humans who belong to both sets. IMO this is the group closest to the throne of God who will go through both resurrections. I think this group is who Jesus lived and ministered to during his earthly ministry, so any teachings concerning future events may have only been to this set who is both in the church group and in the Jewish group. It is not a religious promise that Jesus gives during his time on earth. He was addressing the nation of Isreal as a self governing body from all of history. He was also addressing the church grafted into the fig tree. Was Paul wrong in making a distinction between the two groups? I do not think so. The last 1000 years the church would be in heaven, but have access to the earth. The restored nation of Israel would rule on earth, but have access to heaven. All 6th day humans were given a majority of time to live and take care of the earth. God does alot the Nation of Israel the last 1000 years as their sole reign, because of the Faith of Abraham, and the promise God made to him.
I think it is wrong to deny the Jews their sole governance of earth. Not because of the way they have been treated, and especially not because they were constantly disobeying God over and over. The only reason is because God made a promise that has not yet been fulfilled, and God has not revealed any change in plans.
I am mixed on a tribulation period. The only point is that there has never been a time probably since Noahâs Flood if not before, where there has been peace on earth. Is it even possible? Then for only 3+ years. Is the spirit of anti-christ the point that humans can achieve perfection on their own? Does God give them the same 3.5 years that Jesus had on earth? The Romans claimed they brought peace to the earth. Then hung Jesus for blasphemy.
The point is, the image of God given to humankind is promised back to humans after the church is complete for Gentiles. This is distinct from the appointed time the nation of Israel is restored to have control over the earth. But they will still get the same restored image of God.
You didnât read it in Greek. You just quoted a 150 year old lexicon. Again, I directed you to modern scholarship on what these terms mean.
or do you just conveniently ignore what people write when it disagrees with what you want to believe.
Sorry man, you wonât have much success with this infantilizing language.
The publication of a Baptist organization is not scholarship. It is propaganda.
It is not without interest. I always wondered what convoluted gobble-dee-gook was used to change Paulâs meaning to the opposite of the actual text and now I have a reference to it. But I donât see a shred of honesty in this. Not one bit. I only see how it conveniently ignores any portion of the text which doesnât agree with this attempt to distort the meaning of Paulâs words, like 1 Cor 15:50, âflesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.â Yours and the websites claim that this doesnât speak of what the body is made is plainly contradicted by the text in which Paul takes the time to explicitly speak of what these bodies are made of. I am not being snowed by this nonsense at all.
This attempt to cast one demoninationâs opinion as authoritative Biblical scholarship LOL, caused me to do some research to find some real Biblical scholarship on the topic and thus I encountered this rather interesting discussion here.
The publication of a Baptist organization is not scholarship. It is propaganda.
The same author has published papers on just this topic in the Journal of Biblical Literature. And thatâs not a Baptist organization, thatâs Houston Baptist University. Itâs an accredited university.
was used to change Paulâs meaning to the opposite of the actual text and now
This error was dismissed in the article. Itâs the English thatâs misleading, not the Greek. If you canât subject your theology to criticism, as least donât act so confidently.