Thank you. I just added a new topic on the Ascension.
I would read Erickson on this issue. Jesus did not give up his physical resurrection body; on the contrary, it was simply changed at the ascension. You might say he evolved if you accept Erickson’s view. Everything that was Jesus went to heaven; however, is the changing of the body in the way Erickson thinks correct? Scholars have been debating this for years. The Book of Enoch about which I am writing is not apocrypha. It is called the IV Book of Enoch and was never in the Hebrew Bible.
There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. Cor 15.40
The splendour of the heavenly or spiritual body is quite another from that of the earthly!
A spiritual body does not mean a non-physical body. As I said, reading the whole chapter would be helpful.
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 15.54
So when the physical body is clothed with the non-physical the non-physical or spiritual as stated does ascend to heaven. Dust to dust and spirit to heaven.
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Cor 15.50
When did Jesus shed His flesh and bone body? Had to be after His post-resurrection appearances and before his ascension? or maybe during the ascension. There’s no record of such an event. It’s ad hoc
Who says his post-resurrection body of flesh and bone is perishable?
You haven’t told us what happened to his post-resurrection physical body.
If the theology is so revolutionarily different from surrounding cultures, why wouldn’t the history be just as different?
Why would the ancient readers be expected to draw the line between theology and history? Like: this bit is true, but this bit is an accommodation to your weak understanding, to help you understand the first bit.
It’s an incoherent hermeneutic.
You are not being scriptural here, Jeremy. Jesus said absolutely nothing of a spiritual body in the sense that you mean it.
The ascension did not make Jesus have two spirits. He had one physical body and a spirit that reunited the third day. When he went to heaven on the 40th day, his physical body and spirit went to heaven until the Second Coming. That will happen to my parents on the Second Advent. Their spirits will return with Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:14) and be reunited to their physical bodies. They will rise in a perfected state and meet the Lord in the air. Then we will be with Jesus forever.
I invite everyone to join Ascension and Gnosticism. That is the new topic continuing this one with a more correct title. Edward
I’m not an ANE historian, but I’m guessing that the kingdom of Isreal was disproportionately powerful per its size, especially under David. And Joshua defeated 31 kings in 5 years, losing only 1 battle. I don’t know of any other smaller nations at that time that were so successful on the battlefield.
I don’t think the ancient Hebrews made any Genesis 1 truth-distinctions between theology and science. The science was true, the science of their day, the 3-tiered universe, which God used to couch his theological truths, which I would imagine were more emphasized in the ancient mind since they were already acquainted with the ancient science. But even an ancient could see that the history wasn’t, “true”, the sun created on the 4th day and before plants, for example.
Thanks for the response.
“Theistic Evolution tends to be a little more liberal than progressive creation: common descent. Progressive Creation:”
It seems to me that if the data shows a causal chain from Big Bang to now, then what you call, “liberal” TE is actually the more conservative stance, sticking to the narrative with no addendums to ease presuppositions. In addition I agree with @BoltzmannBrain that if we accept any kind of common descent, then we accept that God used nature to get us here. And, following, the only acceptable theological stance would IMHO be that God endowed nature with the intelligence to do the job, not where it’s necessary that He help it along. You could respond with conservative Progressive Creationism, but that ignores the evidence of biological evolution and takes an inconsistent stance that nature got the job done in creating a biosphere through cosmological evolution, but couldn’t get life here through similar natural processes.
The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. Cor 15.46.
The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. Cor 15.47.
Remember that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Recall that Jesus appeared in the flesh and then ascended in the spiritual body, two bodies according to scripture. The first physical, the second Spiritual. The first cannot enter heaven the second can. Nothing else is stated by scripture.
I think we might have to say : physical or spiritual body. Maybe both. We dont know, lets agree to disagree.
Gospel of Luke
See that it is I myself. Feel my hands, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones so you see me have. I stand behind everything I have said. Two spirits: I do not think so. I shall never surrender.
After the resurrection, Jesus appeared in the flesh and then ascended. Period. Not like a helium balloon, of course, but he didn’t leave his physical body behind. Or did he? Why won’t you tell me what happened to his physical body?
They did not necessarily identify the sun as the source of light. The sun ruled the day, to be sure, but the light of day still existed at noon even if the clouds obscured the sun.