Nephesh #5315 Genesis 2:7

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could be said to represent rebellion and disobedience, yes?

No, I wouldn't agree with that either. I thought it might help you if I related what symbolism I might think is in the Tree of Knowledge, but I find it hard to articulate. I checked what other people have said of it, and found a vast spectrum of answers. So, I'm not claiming a definitive answer, but I wouldn't say the tree conveys anything quite as negative as you make it. It is more a symbol of totality - infinity - of the unknown. What made it dangerous to Adam & Eve was that it is impossible for a finite being to possess such things. To grasp for the fruit of such a tree is an exercise in futility. In that regard, I am probably closest to the commentary of Matthew Henry, who said the tree didn't possess any virtue to impart knowledge, but it was the act itself that opened up new possibilities to Adam - the possibility of doing something that wasn't God's will.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
... One can ask then, why do we do this? And that is where I think the fundamental typology of Paul's approach comes in. We do this because Adam is a type of all of us; we are, each and every one of us, ontologically Adam. We need to understand that if it had been ourselves rather than another individual standing by that tree, we would have done exactly the same thing. Because, typologically, we are the same person that Adam was/is. Adam's sin is my sin and my sin is Adam's.

...

The relation of type to specific instantiation of type is not of a copy imitating a model. The type exists ontologically in each and every individual instantiation of it, such that each instantiation possesses something of the same being as the type. Paul expresses this elsewhere with the preposition "in" As "in Adam" all die, so "in Christ" all are made alive. What it means to have eternal life is to have the life of Christ within us. And it would be futile to attempt to imitate Christ or model our behaviour on his without that.

I appreciate your effort to explain, but I don't know that I fully understand you yet. You seem to be applying your ideas unevenly in an attempt to excuse Adam as a cause yet make Christ the full propitiation of our sin. So you seem to compare "in Adam" to "in Christ" while meaning a different relationship between us and those typologies. I disagree that everyone would have done the same thing had they been standing by the tree. The fact is, Adam and Eve responded differently to it. Neither responded to the tree itself. Eve responded to the serpent (the first one to actually dare to trespass). Adam responded to Eve (not the serpent or the tree). Each responded differently.

But let me ask you two questions: 1) Could Adam have lived a sinless life? 2) Can anyone (aside from Christ) now live a sinless life?
 
Upvote 0

random person

1 COR. 10:11; HEB. 1:2; HEB. 9:26,28; 1 PET. 1:20
Dec 10, 2013
3,646
262
Riverside California
✟14,087.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
No, I wouldn't agree with that either. I thought it might help you if I related what symbolism I might think is in the Tree of Knowledge, but I find it hard to articulate. I checked what other people have said of it, and found a vast spectrum of answers. So, I'm not claiming a definitive answer, but I wouldn't say the tree conveys anything quite as negative as you make it. It is more a symbol of totality - infinity - of the unknown. What made it dangerous to Adam & Eve was that it is impossible for a finite being to possess such things. To grasp for the fruit of such a tree is an exercise in futility. In that regard, I am probably closest to the commentary of Matthew Henry, who said the tree didn't possess any virtue to impart knowledge, but it was the act itself that opened up new possibilities to Adam - the possibility of doing something that wasn't God's will.

One tree contained life permissable by God to eat of.

One tree contained a serpent not permissable by God to eat of.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I appreciate your effort to explain, but I don't know that I fully understand you yet. You seem to be applying your ideas unevenly in an attempt to excuse Adam as a cause yet make Christ the full propitiation of our sin. So you seem to compare "in Adam" to "in Christ" while meaning a different relationship between us and those typologies. I disagree that everyone would have done the same thing had they been standing by the tree. The fact is, Adam and Eve responded differently to it. Neither responded to the tree itself. Eve responded to the serpent (the first one to actually dare to trespass). Adam responded to Eve (not the serpent or the tree). Each responded differently.

But let me ask you two questions: 1) Could Adam have lived a sinless life? 2) Can anyone (aside from Christ) now live a sinless life?

No, I am not trying to excuse Adam. I am trying to make sure we do not excuse ourselves.

I would not say Adam and Eve responded differently. They may have responded to different stimuli, but the choice was the same: obey God's command in trust, or obey their own desire to eat the fruit of the tree. I am quite sure everyone would have made the same decision. I think that is the point of the story.

Nor do I intend to paint a different relationship between ourselves and Adam and ourselves and Christ. I try to follow Paul here who keeps them quite parallel.

On your questions: 1) Yes. 2) No. (with the exception of very young children and those who experience a degree of mental disability as to make them incapable of distinguishing good from evil).
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
That Adam is the reason we die doesn't excuse our sin.



Why? Was Adam different from us in some way?

To say that Adam is the reason we die is a direct contradiction of Paul when he says in this very context that "death spread to all because all have sinned". Not because Adam sinned, but because all have sinned. Now that applies only when we think of Adam individually. When we think of Adam typologically, then of course, to say Adam sinned is to say we all have sinned.

Yes, Adam was different from us. Until Adam partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam was innocent. Adam had no knowledge of sin. We imbibe knowledge of sin practically with our mother's milk--certainly from a very young age. (This is the state Calvin called "depravity".)
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yes, Adam was different from us. Until Adam partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam was innocent. Adam had no knowledge of sin. We imbibe knowledge of sin practically with our mother's milk--certainly from a very young age. (This is the state Calvin called "depravity".)

Or a Lutheran might call it "original sin."

To say that Adam is the reason we die is a direct contradiction of Paul when he says in this very context that "death spread to all because all have sinned". Not because Adam sinned, but because all have sinned. Now that applies only when we think of Adam individually. When we think of Adam typologically, then of course, to say Adam sinned is to say we all have sinned.

I assume you're familiar with causal chains, so I don't understand why you're not grasping that idea in this case. It is like the genetic predisposition to alcoholism. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a genetic predispostion is about half of the risk. The other factors are social and psychological.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

So, the genetics of your parents - their "brokenness" - their "sin" predisposes you toward alcoholism. However, it's not they who take the drink. It's not they who give you alcohol poisoning (aside from prenatal issues). It is your sin that brings the actual effects of alcoholism. There is a causal chain from parent to child. The ancestor started that chain.

There is a causal chain from Adam to us. Adam started the chain.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Or a Lutheran might call it "original sin."



I assume you're familiar with causal chains, so I don't understand why you're not grasping that idea in this case. It is like the genetic predisposition to alcoholism. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a genetic predispostion is about half of the risk. The other factors are social and psychological.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

So, the genetics of your parents - their "brokenness" - their "sin" predisposes you toward alcoholism. However, it's not they who take the drink. It's not they who give you alcohol poisoning (aside from prenatal issues). It is your sin that brings the actual effects of alcoholism. There is a causal chain from parent to child. The ancestor started that chain.

There is a causal chain from Adam to us. Adam started the chain.
I would say the causal chain in this case is societal or systematic rather than individual.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I would say the causal chain in this case is societal or systematic rather than individual.

But that would mean I can avoid it. I can avoid societal issues if I try hard enough. That was the idea behind the monastery.

IMO there was a material difference between pre & post fall Adam.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
But that would mean I can avoid it. I can avoid societal issues if I try hard enough. That was the idea behind the monastery.

And you see how that failed. Not even a cloistered society is immune from sin. Humans bring it in with them.

IMO there was a material difference between pre & post fall Adam.

I think that would be adding an ad hoc speculation to scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I think that would be adding an ad hoc speculation to scripture.

It would - just as much as it is speculation to say the problem is societal. The difference is that I see my speculation as meeting the "criteria" while yours does not. We both agree that before the fall Adam could have led a sinless life. After the fall neither he nor anyone else could. There was a change in Adam that had nothing to do with society.

And you see how that failed. Not even a cloistered society is immune from sin. Humans bring it in with them.

Exactly. That was my point. It is innate in humans themselves, not in the systems they create. If it were the systems, atheists could well have a point that religion is the source of all our problems.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
It would - just as much as it is speculation to say the problem is societal. The difference is that I see my speculation as meeting the "criteria" while yours does not. We both agree that before the fall Adam could have led a sinless life. After the fall neither he nor anyone else could. There was a change in Adam that had nothing to do with society.

Sure it had to do with society. After all, you said Adam was responding to Eve and Eve was responding to the serpent. And all three were turning away from a relationship with God. These are all social relationships. Indeed the Fall could be summed up as the breaking of relationships in every direction: relationships without which no person can be a fully human person.

First and foremost the relationship with God is broken. In Adam we choose our ego above God and so are alienated from our Creator. From this follows the breaking of the relationship of human with human--depicted biblically in the conflict between Cain and Abel. We also get the breaking of the relationship of care that is supposed to exist between humanity and non-human creation. Remember how Jeremiah linked the Babylonian exile to the Israelite failure to give the land its sabbaths? And, especially in Lamentations, he sees the broken covenant expressed in the devastation of the land. Psychologically we get the breaking of the human personality, the conflict between ego and self, which, because of our psychosomatic nature often manifests as problems of physical health.

In Christ we have the possibility of restoring right relations, beginning, of course, by restoring the proper relationship of ourselves as creatures to our Creator: and other healings follow from that, as we learn to forgive and seek forgiveness and practice a new way of life in harmony with others.

I wonder if people can fully appreciate how devastating the Fall is without understanding that it is a social phenomenon. Even for Adam as an individual.

Exactly. That was my point. It is innate in humans themselves, not in the systems they create. If it were the systems, atheists could well have a point that religion is the source of all our problems.

Systems humans create mirror and often amplify the sinful egotism and desires of humans. But I don't think sin needs to be innate in humans. That would be assuming a genetic basis of sin, and I don't think that is defensible. (This is where I part company with Augustine and Roman Catholic doctrine.) Humans are shaped from birth by the systems they live in and contribute to the systems they participate in. It is a perpetual feedback loop that automatically corrupts young humans who in turn become corrupters of the next generation because there is no exit from social intercourse for a social being.

The few who try to live as hermits cannot thereby erase the way society has already corrupted them.
And to try starting from the other end of life doesn't work either because infants who have no social intercourse fail to thrive. They cannot fully express themselves as human beings without participation in a social milieu.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Sure it had to do with society. After all, you said Adam was responding to Eve and Eve was responding to the serpent.

I did say that, and you disagreed with me at the time. Why are you now flipping and trying to use it against me? "Society" is a human construct used to describe a collection of individuals. It's not as if "society" exists like some Platonic Form. Sure, Adam was reacting to his environment. If only Adam had existed there would have been nothing to rebel against and therefore no sin. But you've modified my point. My point was not that there was some "relationship" that caused Adam to respond as he did. My point was that Adam as an individual was different from Eve. And so, due to that individuality, he responded differently. Given the same external stimuli, Adam and Eve responded differently.

It was you (among others) who helped me understand the shift in evolutionary thinking from the idea of a species to populations, and eventually to individuals. "Species" is a human concept - useful for biological studies, but still a human concept. As Loudmouth recently pointed out to me, evolutionary trees reference species because of the utility of doing it that way, but in reality they are trees of individual organisms. If biologists had the resources to do it, they would place every individual on the tree. They wouldn't stop with just a "species". Just as in biology where it starts with changes in the DNA of an individual and spreads to a population of descendants as a result, so it is here. Sin started with an individual (the cause) and spread to the descendents (the effect).

Were it a societal cause as you claim there would be no individual responsibility. We would be trying to save society (Social Gospel) rather than individuals (Christian Gospel).

And all three were turning away from a relationship with God. These are all social relationships. Indeed the Fall could be summed up as the breaking of relationships in every direction: relationships without which no person can be a fully human person.

These were effects of Adam & Eve's actions. They were not causes.

Systems humans create mirror and often amplify the sinful egotism and desires of humans.

Yep. Effects, not causes.

The few who try to live as hermits cannot thereby erase the way society has already corrupted them.

Why? Are you saying people can't change?

That would be assuming a genetic basis of sin, and I don't think that is defensible.

Why? Being a theistic evolutionist, I would think you would like that idea. Is our DNA perfect?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
My point was not that there was some "relationship" that caused Adam to respond as he did.

Hard to say. I suppose one unanswerable question is whether Adam would have responded to the serpent the same way Eve did; or did he take the fruit because it was offered to him by Eve.

My point was that Adam as an individual was different from Eve. And so, due to that individuality, he responded differently. Given the same external stimuli, Adam and Eve responded differently.

Interesting. Following on your earlier statement, I would have said that given different stimuli, they nevertheless responded in the same way i.e. by eating the fruit.

Sin started with an individual (the cause) and spread to the descendents (the effect).

If one assumes that Adam is an individual. I generally take Adam as a literary personification of the species.

Were it a societal cause as you claim there would be no individual responsibility. We would be trying to save society (Social Gospel) rather than individuals (Christian Gospel).

Ah, perhaps we have hit the nub of it for you. Frankly I don't accept your first premise.
But more to the point, I don't think one can draw a sharp distinction between individual and society. I mentioned a feedback loop. There is no such thing as a society which is not made up of individuals. There is also no such thing as an individual who is not a product of the society which formed them. And individual cannot be cut loose from social forces, no matter how much they try. But neither is an individual helpless against social forces (which is why I disagree with your first premise, above). Individuals do have the power to shape social forces for good or for ill. So there is individual responsibility as to what they do with that power.

One of the fundamental errors of Marxism, IMO, was to think that if you only got the environment right, you would automatically get well-functioning, moral, compassionate, and socially responsible individuals. Being atheists, they did not factor in the sinfulness of humanity, so in their attempts to build an ideal society they were blind-sided by the persistence of greed and selfishness and lust for power right in the heart of their own movement with tragic consequences for the whole society.

So, no, I don't think we can save individuals by saving society. But I don't think we can save society by focusing only on individuals either. Because of the inevitable feedback between individuals and society we need to work at both levels. Fundamentally, salvation is personal. But making a better society is also a way to witness to the genuineness of salvation. Christ, after all, did not just leave a group of individuals to witness to him; he left a community, the church, which witnessed as much by the way they lived together as by the way each one individually conducted him/herself.



These were effects of Adam & Eve's actions. They were not causes.



Yep. Effects, not causes.

Oh, agreed. But broken relationships are a social effect.



Why? Are you saying people can't change?
Not so much that they can't change, but that they can't avoid having been shaped by the society that formed them. Not even if they retreat to the proverbial desert island.



Why? Being a theistic evolutionist, I would think you would like that idea. Is our DNA perfect?

Not at all. If sin were transmitted genetically one could, theoretically, find a gene or cluster of genes, a gene network which is expressed by a propensity to sin. And one could then, theoretically, breed sin out of humanity and so free people from sin by a scientific manipulation of the genome. Christ not needed.

Basically, a genetic view of the transmission of sin from generation to generation tempts us toward designing the perfect human for ourselves (not so different from the Marxist quest to create a better human being by creating a better social system)--which, ironically, would actually be a repetition of Adam's sin. To take control for ourselves instead of trusting in God.

Needless to say I am opposed to a concept which would offer salvation through a means other than Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Not so much that they can't change, but that they can't avoid having been shaped by the society that formed them. Not even if they retreat to the proverbial desert island.

Shrug. But who knows what that shape will be? Some might accept social norms while others oppose them. As I've been saying all along, the response of each individual to society is different. So, I'll just leave you to consider Psalm 51:5 and Mark 7:14-23.

Not at all. If sin were transmitted genetically one could, theoretically, find a gene or cluster of genes, a gene network which is expressed by a propensity to sin. And one could then, theoretically, breed sin out of humanity and so free people from sin by a scientific manipulation of the genome. Christ not needed.

Sure, but that's not how I meant it. I meant it more in the sense of asking if 1 + 1 can equal 3. That's an oversimplification, but maybe it conveys my intent better.

Needless to say I am opposed to a concept which would offer salvation through a means other than Christ.

OK.
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
...But was Adam created immortal, not subject to physical death? It appears not...

...Not only were Adam and all the living creatures living souls before Adam sinned, but they were all subject to death before he sinned. After his creation outside the garden, God placed Adam in the garden and gave him access to the tree of life to sustain his life. This fact tells us that he wasn't immortal, but subject to death before he sinned. Some suggest that even the fact that Adam had to eat at all, much less of the tree of life, before he sinned, shows that he was mortal (as much so as all other living creatures) before he sinned. Would he not have starved to death had he not eaten? If not, why did God arrange for him to eat anything at all? Where he sinned, he lost access to the tree of life, "lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen. 3:22)...

...We die physically for the same reason Adam did. We're mortal, and we lack access to the tree of life...
This reminds me of Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theological. He argued that Adam was created mortal and required regular nourishment from the tree of life to keep from aging. Once separated from the tree his eventual death was certain. I can buy that.
 
Upvote 0

random person

1 COR. 10:11; HEB. 1:2; HEB. 9:26,28; 1 PET. 1:20
Dec 10, 2013
3,646
262
Riverside California
✟14,087.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Another bit of evidence pointing to the fact that the death that was experienced at the fall was spiritual, not physical, death and the life that Jesus imparted is spiritual life, not eternal life on earth is implied in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22: “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Here one can see that the life that Jesus brought was meant to entirely repair the curse of death instituted by Adam. Since futurists believe that the fall of man instituted physical death on earth, then the resurrection of the dead is thus assumed to be a resurrection of eternal earthly bodies. However, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 poses a significant problem for this view.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 indicates that Jesus Christ was to be the first to be resurrected from the dead. If this resurrection is a resurrection of earthly, physical bodies as is often assumed Jesus was not actually the first person to be raised from the dead in an earthly, physical sense. 1 Kings 17:17-23, 2 Kings 13:21, Luke 8:52-55 and John 11:43-44 all list examples of people who were raised from the dead in their earthly, physical bodies before Jesus’ resurrection. This fact therefore implies that the resurrection of the dead is a spiritual resurrection and not a resurrection of eternal earthly, physical bodies. And if the resurrection is spiritual, then the death experienced at the fall must also be spiritual since according to 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 the life that Jesus brought through the cross is expected to repaired the curse of death at the fall.

As explained above, the death that Adam experienced after eating from the forbidden fruit was spiritual death. Conversely, it was spiritual death that Jesus conquered on the cross. As stated above, spiritual death is separation from God. The day that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge they were cast out of Eden and therefore–quite literally–separated from God. Likewise while hanging on the cross, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Here one can see that at the time of the crucifixion Jesus also experienced separation from God which is spiritual death. However, through His sacrificial death, Jesus brought forgiveness of sins to the faithful and thus restored fellowship with God. This restored fellowship with God is spiritual life. Thus spiritual life (restored fellowship with God) is the opposite of spiritual death (separation from God).

This notion of spiritual death (separation from God) and spiritual life (renewed fellowship with God) is echoed over and over in the Bible. For example, Don Preston notes that Paul while still physically alive said that he had once experienced death: “Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” This idea is also conveyed in John 11:25-26. Here Jesus tells Martha the sister of Lazarus, “[E]veryone who lives and believes in Me will never die.” Of course, Martha eventually died physically as do all people. And Paul, like Adam, did not actually physically die the day in which he first learned right from wrong. Rather spiritual death (separation from God) begins when someone sins with the knowledge of right and wrong. Recall that in Romans 7:7 Paul says that he was once alive apart from the Law but when he learned of the Law he was suddenly guilty of sin now knowing right from wrong. The same thing occurred in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they were immediately given knowledge of right and wrong and sin became sin and so they also died that day spiritually as did Paul when he learned of the Law.

Having explained how spiritual death is separation from God through sin, let us now delve more deeply into the relationship between spiritual life and the reception of the Holy Spirit. In John 11:25-26 Jesus says, “[E]veryone who lives and believes in Me will never die.” As stated above, spiritual life is, of course, the opposite of spiritual death. If someone who is said to be spiritually dead is separated from God, then someone who has spiritual life is therefore someone who is in the presence of God. How is one restored into the presence of God? This occurs with the reception of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual life is marked by and begins on earth with the reception of the Holy Spirit. By receiving the Holy Spirit the saints are no longer separated from God because they have been brought into the presence of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 2 Corinthians 1:22 reads, “[God] who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge [down payment].” Similarly Ephesians 1:13 says, “[H]aving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit . . .” Upon receiving the Holy Spirit–the Spirit of God—the saints are , of course, no longer separated from God. This restoration into the presence of God through the presence of the Holy Spirit is a seal, pledge or down payment guaranteeing a more literal and physical fellowship with God in heaven after physical death (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13). Thus spiritual death ends and spiritual life begins through the Holy Spirit while on earth and this eternal spiritual life comes to its ultimate fruition in heaven when the saints are ushered into the literal presence of God in heaven

Preston makes the following argument: “The wages of sin is death. Forgiveness removes all sin—the cause of death. Thus, those forgiven of sin do not receive the wages of sin, i.e. they do not die.” (Don K. Preston, We Shall Meet Him in The Air: The Wedding of the King of Kings!, (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Management Inc., 2010), 18.) If sin brought about an instantaneous change in physiology such that Adam was destined to eventually physically die, then why doesn’t forgiveness of sins reverse the curse of Adam and ultimately result in eternal physical life on earth? (Ibid., 18-19)
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
...1 Corinthians 15:20-23 indicates that Jesus Christ was to be the first to be resurrected from the dead. If this resurrection is a resurrection of earthly, physical bodies as is often assumed Jesus was not actually the first person to be raised from the dead in an earthly, physical sense. 1 Kings 17:17-23, 2 Kings 13:21, Luke 8:52-55 and John 11:43-44 all list examples of people who were raised from the dead in their earthly, physical bodies before Jesus’ resurrection. This fact therefore implies that the resurrection of the dead is a spiritual resurrection and not a resurrection of eternal earthly, physical bodies. And if the resurrection is spiritual, then the death experienced at the fall must also be spiritual since according to 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 the life that Jesus brought through the cross is expected to repaired the curse of death at the fall...
Whoa, baby. Let's pause for a moment. Are you denying the bodily resurrection? Our resurrection is most indeed a physical one. The bodily resurrection is essential Christian doctrine:

The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death.

These will be the same bodies people had in earthly life—but our resurrection bodies will not die and, for the righteous, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35–44, 1 John 3:2).

The resurrection of the body is an essential Christian doctrine, as the apostle Paul declares: "f the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:13–18).

Because, as Paul tells us, the Christian faith cannot exist without this doctrine, it has been infallibly defined by the Church. It is included in the three infallible professions of faith—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—and has been solemnly, infallibly taught by ecumenical councils.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body

At this point, I'm thinking this thread would be more at home in General Theology.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

random person

1 COR. 10:11; HEB. 1:2; HEB. 9:26,28; 1 PET. 1:20
Dec 10, 2013
3,646
262
Riverside California
✟14,087.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Whoa, baby. Let's pause for a moment. Are you denying the bodily resurrection? Our resurrection is most indeed a physical one. The bodily resurrection is essential Christian doctrine:

If one does not believe physical death came into existance at the fall but that death always existed, what is physical bodily resurrection? And also as an individual that believes Christ will always reign from the Kingdom of God and not in physical Jerusalem, what is the point of redeeming creation? It has been in this state since the beginning.
 
Upvote 0