Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[TLK Valentine]

Please explain. Everyone but a few select physically die in the Bible.

Precisely the point -- the "death" that God refers to is a spiritual death, since even among his most righteous, all but two experience the physical one: Enoch and Elijah.

 

[redleghunter]

Precisely the point -- the "death" that God refers to is a spiritual death, since even among his most righteous, all but two experience the physical one: Enoch and Elijah.

I must of missed the point earlier but will give it a shot.

We see in the OT the promise of spiritual regeneration which is we are spiritually dead and through the sovereign Grace of God born again. That addresses the spirit or soul.

We will all be bodily resurrected. "Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt."

The NT tells us those who are in Christ will be 'like' Him and share His inheritance.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I must of missed the point earlier but will give it a shot.

We see in the OT the promise of spiritual regeneration which is we are spiritually dead and through the sovereign Grace of God born again. That addresses the spirit or soul.

We will all be bodily resurrected. "Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt."

The NT tells us those who are in Christ will be 'like' Him and share His inheritance.

Indeed -- His inheritance being the Kingdom of God... which He said was not of this world...

 

[Hieronymus]

After all, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats. And he dies. But not physically; he lives on for many years thereafter.

Non the less, death was introduced into the Creation in Genesis 3.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Non the less, death was introduced into the Creation in Genesis 3.

But it didn't actually happen to anyone until much later.

 

[-57]

Can resurrection only apply to physical death?

The resurrection was in reference to the physical death and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ...

 

[-57]

No, it doesn't have to be that. But when all that scripture is telling you that the death is a spiritual one, it's hard to find any verses that support a physical death.

I suppose you would have us believeing Jesus didn't physically die on the cross?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, it doesn't have to be that. But when all that scripture is telling you that the death is a spiritual one, it's hard to find any verses that support a physical death.

I suppose you would have us believeing Jesus didn't physically die on the cross?

Instead of going though all that legalistic pilpul, why not just read it and accept it the way it is? Don't add anything that's not there, and don't subtract anything that is there. And then you'll be able to accept what God told Adam about death, and at the same time accept that Jesus did physically die on the cross.

And then none of this will bother you any more.

 

[The Barbarian]

Non the less, death was introduced into the Creation in Genesis 3.

Yes, that spiritual death that Adam brought into the world. Adam and Eve were not created immortal. God even alludes to this fact when He expresses concern that Adam might eat from the tree of life and become so.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The resurrection was in reference to the physical death and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ...

And nothing more?

Could it be that Jesus' miracles, much like his parable, have a deeper meaning?

Consider Matthew 4:4 -- when the Devil tempts Jesus in the desert, he rebukes him with ""Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Yet later on(Matthew 15:29-38), Jesus miraculously feeds multitudes in the wilderness, with loaves (of bread) and fishes.

Now, if all that means is that Jesus can use the power of God to conjure up some snacks, it paints a picture of a god who is not only petty (using such power as what? A divine caterer?) and contradictory (those people lived pretty well on bread), but also cruel and capricious (think of how many millions of starving Christians today could use a couple of loaves of bread).

On the other hand, if Jesus' purpose was to demonstrate physically what The Father could do spiritually (that is, sustain people through faith in Him), then the miracle has a much deeper meaning.

The same is true for almost all of Jesus' miracles... look at his healing miracles -- on a strictly physical level, they're pretty shallow. But since the Jews of the time viewed physical infirmity as a sign of spiritual impurity -- that is, God cursed those who displeased him with illness and plagues -- than the act of healing becomes an act of reconciling people to God by restoring physical and spiritual wholeness to those who were originally cast out.

If Jesus' miracles can be understood as using the physical as a metaphor for the spiritual (as I believe they can), then why not his greatest miracle of all -- His resurrection? Could not the resurrection be a physical symbol of a spiritual truth?

Just a thought...

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, that spiritual death that Adam brought into the world.

That's your personal (or perhaps denominational) interpretation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yes, that spiritual death that Adam brought into the world.

That's your personal (or perhaps denominational) interpretation.

God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God is truthful, than the death He was speaking of, was a spiritual, not a physical one.

 

[The Barbarian]

If Jesus' miracles can be understood as using the physical as a metaphor for the spiritual (as I believe they can), then why not his greatest miracle of all -- His resurrection? Could not the resurrection be a physical symbol of a spiritual truth?

Just a thought...

Yes. We must remember that He is God, and has no need to do miracles. They are done, not out of necessity, but in order to teach us something.

 

[Hieronymus]

Barbarian observes:
Yes, that spiritual death that Adam brought into the world.



God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God is truthful, than the death He was speaking of, was a spiritual, not a physical one.

Again, that's your biassed interpretation, biassed by evolutionism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes. We must remember that He is God, and has no need to do miracles. They are done, not out of necessity, but in order to teach us something.

Indeed -- we have to remember that Jesus is trying to explain Godly things to a, frankly, very limited and literal-minded audience (this is most clear in the first few chapters of John).

Jesus knew that not everyone was going to get the meaning behind his words -- he sad so in Matthew 10:10-13; that was the point.

If Jesus' words are open to interpretation and not meant for everyone to get, it stands to reason that his actions -- including his miracles -- would be similar.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again, that's your biassed interpretation, biassed by evolutionism.

I do hope you can come up with a better rebuttal than "nuh-uh!"

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God is truthful, than the death He was speaking of, was a spiritual, not a physical one.

Again, that's your biassed interpretation, biassed by evolutionism.

No, all of that is found in Genesis. If you need to deny what's in it, isn't that a clue for you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, all of that is found in Genesis. If you need to deny what's in it, isn't that a clue for you?

Jesus himself said that not everyone was going to understand his words -- and that that was by design. Even today there are people who need to believe that the parables are literal events that Jesus personally witnessed, otherwise they don't count...

If we accept that Jesus is God, it would stand to reason that even if Genesis is God's words, not everyone is going to get them, and be mired in literalism.

So many people arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, they never bother to listen to the music...

 

[-57]

Barbarian observes:
No, it doesn't have to be that. But when all that scripture is telling you that the death is a spiritual one, it's hard to find any verses that support a physical death.



Instead of going though all that legalistic pilpul, why not just read it and accept it the way it is? Don't add anything that's not there, and don't subtract anything that is there. And then you'll be able to accept what God told Adam about death, and at the same time accept that Jesus did physically die on the cross.

And then none of this will bother you any more.

So, if I read you right...there will be no physical resurrection? Is that what you're saying?

 

[-57]

Barbarian observes:
God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Adam eats, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God is truthful, than the death He was speaking of, was a spiritual, not a physical one.



No, all of that is found in Genesis. If you need to deny what's in it, isn't that a clue for you?

The innocent animal died in Adams place...became Adams sin covering...ZIP ahead 4K years and the innocent Jesus died in our place...became our covering.

...the Gospel is in Genesis.