I am genuinely curious of your response to these questions, whenever you find the time to answer. Thanks.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did God give the first two humans immortal bodies as well?
I'm assuming you believe in the immortality of the human body because after he died, Jesus' physical body was resurrected to a new glorified one.
But isn't there at least some 'spatiality' involved in the corruption of their physical human bodies when they sinned?
Isn't the whole point of Jesus physically rising from the dead with a new glorified body, (that his disciples could actually touch), is that he is restoring what was corrupted when man first sinned?
But isn't there at least some 'spatiality' involved in the corruption of their physical human bodies when they sinned?
I happen to be very impressed with the way the human body works. There was no corruption of the human body; nature continued as it did. Creation changed for us, in a spiritual way, in our estrangement from God. If we return to Him, there is nothing corrupt in nature for us at all.
Adam and Eve were never immortal. Indeed, at the end of Genesis 3, God expresses concern that they might become so, and takes steps to see that they remain mortal as He intended.
I guess the most important question is do you believe Jesus was resurrected into a new physical body?
And does your eschatology involve the physical resurrection of believers into a new physical creation at the end of this age?
He had the same body that hung on the cross. How do we know that?
Ask Thomas. Jesus had him check his hands and side for the wounds he received while being crucified. Same body, but glorified.
We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Nicene Creed
So what does that mean? We will have a body as we do now, but a glorified body, not subject to decay and death.
and I take it you do not view this as any kind of Restoration of creation, or the returning of a broken creation to its renewed state?
God said it was good, and would not break it just to get even with two disobedient humans. He got it right the first time and that hasn't changed. We don't get a lot of detail from God on what it is when we come into His kingdom. And I'm not inclined to speculate.
You don't find it strange to be allegorizing the fall/curse (i.e. the fall was only spiritual and the physical body was totally unaffected) ... but then to be fundamentally shifting the view to accept physical/bodily transformation at the resurrection at the end of the age?
If we are experiencing God's kingdom bodily at the end of the age, and worshipping God in our resurrected bodily state... why would you look back at the beginning and allegorize Adam's bodily presence in the Garden of Eden, and say none of that was really happening in corporeal form, and it was all metaphors for a soul being added to evolved primates?
I agree that because of the lack of details, there is a lot we don't understand about this Edenic state presented in Genesis, but to render it all down to non-physical allegory seems highly problematic in light of a belief in bodily resurrection when Jesus returns... and the fact this whole story of God and the salvation of his people revolves around physical flesh and blood, bodily resurrection of Jesus.
You don't find it strange to be allegorizing the fall/curse (i.e. the fall was only spiritual and the physical body was totally unaffected)
If we are experiencing God's kingdom bodily at the end of the age, and worshipping God in our resurrected bodily state... why would you look back at the beginning and allegorize Adam's bodily presence in the Garden of Eden, and say none of that was really happening in corporeal form, and it was all metaphors for a soul being added to evolved primates?
I agree that because of the lack of details, there is a lot we don't understand about this Edenic state presented in Genesis, but to render it all down to non-physical allegory seems highly problematic in light of a belief in bodily resurrection when Jesus returns.
I guess the most important question is do you believe Jesus was resurrected into a new physical body?
And does your eschatology involve the physical resurrection of believers into a new physical creation at the end of this age?
Most scholars today accept that the creation story in Genesis was allegorical, not
literal.
Notably, the New Testament apostles and Jesus himself do not appear to share that view.
Because of "science", most scholars today also believe that the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, etc. were also allegorical and non-historical. But that is also not the view of the apostles.
JimR-OCDS said: ↑
Most scholars today accept that the creation story in Genesis was allegorical, not
literal.
Notably, the New Testament apostles and Jesus himself do not appear to share that view.
The apostles would likely regard our current orthodox view of "science" (in regard to naturalistic cosmology) as something like the creation beliefs coming out of the Epicurean greeks.
Evolutionists pick up on this theme in the 19th century, and settle on an idea that animals have arisen from the elemental forces of natural selection
What we don't want to admit today is that a lot of this stuff we call science today is more truly a philosophical tradition of viewing the origin of the universe in this kind of 'alchemical' way, where the cosmos springs out of a kind of elemental strife between hot and cold, which causes separations, and consolidations... more heatings and coolings as if within a cosmic refiner's furnace.
organization form that was once a fish is now a mammal racing across the forest floor.
The theistic evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin would likely have fit right in with the Gnostic beliefs of the 1st century.
The Apostles did not know the science that we know today.
Jesus taught and spoke according to the intellect of his time.
Had he
spoke of what is known about true creation of the universe, people
would've thought he was a nut and not listen to Him.
His purpose was not to teach science.
Pretty much the way they would have viewed our current "orthodox view" about elements. That would have seemed like a myth to them to.
DeChardin's idea are neither science nor sound theology.
and yet the evolutionary creation narrative believed by modern man would have been familiar to them.
we have made many technological advances but our cosmological traditions have remained largely the same.
For example, students across the world are being taught in biology classes that life naturally arose from non-life.
There is little to no evidence that this type of abiogenesis is even possible, much less probable.
Particularly the Ionian scientists who first began what is now "the scientific method." Democritius, for example, did experiments that convinced him that matter is made of small particles he called "atoms."
And Archimedes' experiments that showed him how to determine if an object was pure gold were also part of that tradition. There were "creationists" in those days, too, who sneered at evidence and science. But the scientists were the ones who found more and more about the way the world works.
Other than geocentrism and four elements, and planets being moved around by gods, and stars being tiny lamps in a dome overhead, and....
So God says.
Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.
I believe Him. You should, too.
You're wrong about that. As we accumulate more and more evidence, it appears that God is right and the creationists are wrong. Would you like me to show you again?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?