• 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.

Is the Fall historical? A question for TE believers

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Critias said:
Fair enough. :)



I don't see where in the Bible the Tree of Life was forbidden while Adam was in perfect communion with God. Maybe you made a mistake in saying that?

Check out Genesis 3:22-24.


22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.



You can't have it both ways. If God created Adam immortal, what would be the point of a "Tree of Life"? What purpose would it serve? And since the above scripture states that Adam never ate from the Tree of Life, then there was no immortal-mortal state change. Adam was created mortal, and never ate from the Tree of Life, which would have made him immortal.

I think we both agree that Adam's cummunion with God died the very moment he ignored God's commands. That's the spiritual death - spiritual separation from God.






I hope this helped. :)
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Critias said:
No where in Scripture does it say the wicked will inherit incorruptable and immortal bodies. Paul is specifically speaking about those in Christ.

Now, I don't know what you mean by "incorruptible" but I will take "immortal" to mean eternal and undying. Right? So, here goes. Firstly, we know that the wicked will be physically tormented. Read Revelations. You know that better than I do, probably. Secondly, we know that the wicked will be tormented eternally. Again, numerous scriptural references.

Unless you're an annihilationist, or universalist? Now that would be interesting.

Anyway, for the wicked to be physically tormented they must have a physical body. And for that physical body to be tormented eternally, it must be an eternally undying body. So the wicked must receive immortal bodies to be eternally physically tormented. Right? Now if you would show me what "incorruptible" is, I'd look into that.

The point is that when Paul speaks of "resurrection" he is not speaking of the body alone, but of the whole person. Under Jewish thought-form the body and the soul are not far distinct. The whole person is mortal (whether as a consequence of the Fall or not, I don't know) and therefore the whole person must be cloaked with immortality to receive the afterlife. It is not as if there is an immortal soul which inhabits an earthly body on earth and a heavenly body in heaven. (In fact, when Acts speaks of preaching that "Jesus is the Christ", I believe that in part it speaks of combatting the heresy that Jesus was a mortal ordinary man who was inhabited by the eternal Spirit Christ / Messiah.) The whole person is "translated" into eternity. The resurrection that Paul speaks of is being translated into an eternity with God, instead of being translated into an eternity without God. On the surface it may seem like the holism vs. dualism argument is simply a matter of semantics, but holism can clear away many questions, like how come the work of Christ has efficacy for the wicked who also seem to receive immortal physical bodies.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
TheBear said:
Check out Genesis 3:22-24.


22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.



You can't have it both ways. If God created Adam immortal, what would be the point of a "Tree of Life"? What purpose would it serve? And since the above scripture states that Adam never ate from the Tree of Life, then there was no immortal-mortal state change. Adam was created mortal, and never ate from the Tree of Life, which would have made him immortal.

I think we both agree that Adam's cummunion with God died the very moment he ignored God's commands. That's the spiritual death - spiritual separation from God.






I hope this helped. :)

It does help to better understand your position, thanks. :)

I just don't agree with your previous statemen:

"The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life, were both forbidden while Adam was in perfect communion with God."

The reason I don't agree with this is because of Genesis 2:16-17. God gave the Tree of Life for Adam to eat, Genesis doesn't state that the Tree of Life was forbidden for Adam before he sinned. That is why I thought you made a mistake in how you stated this.

I don't think you can present an argument that states Adam didn't eat of the Tree of Life. The Bible doesn't state that he did or didn't. So either position is an argument from silence. The best answer that one can give is I don't know.

I believe that either position is possible. The reason I think Adam could have eaten from the Tree of Life is because we can receive God's grace and then turn away from it. We can look to Paul's letters where he states that his readers started with the Spirit and have now turned away from Him.

So can we.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
shernren said:
Now, I don't know what you mean by "incorruptible" but I will take "immortal" to mean eternal and undying. Right? So, here goes. Firstly, we know that the wicked will be physically tormented. Read Revelations. You know that better than I do, probably. Secondly, we know that the wicked will be tormented eternally. Again, numerous scriptural references.

Incorruptable, as Paul used it, means not liable to decay, imperishable. It can also mean immortal.

The Bible doesn't say that those who do not choose God will receive immortal and imperishable bodies. If they did, then what would there be to suffer in hell bodily? For their bodies could not decay or be harmed.

shernren said:
Unless you're an annihilationist, or universalist? Now that would be interesting.

Nope, I am not either.

shernren said:
Anyway, for the wicked to be physically tormented they must have a physical body. And for that physical body to be tormented eternally, it must be an eternally undying body. So the wicked must receive immortal bodies to be eternally physically tormented. Right? Now if you would show me what "incorruptible" is, I'd look into that.

My point was not that the wicked wouldn't receive a body, but that they wouldn't receive the body that those in Christ would receive. Theirs would be different. For them to be tormented in hell in physically, they couldn't have an immortal body that is imperishable. What harm could come to it, none.

That body could very well be dying, but at an eternal pace. I don't think those who denied Christ will receive the atonement of the spiritual bodies He will give.

shernren said:
The point is that when Paul speaks of "resurrection" he is not speaking of the body alone, but of the whole person.

The resurrection is of the body and then the soul will meet it. For the soul will not die as our current bodies will. So there is no need to resurrect the soul when it has not nor will die.

shernren said:
Under Jewish thought-form the body and the soul are not far distinct. The whole person is mortal (whether as a consequence of the Fall or not, I don't know) and therefore the whole person must be cloaked with immortality to receive the afterlife. It is not as if there is an immortal soul which inhabits an earthly body on earth and a heavenly body in heaven. (In fact, when Acts speaks of preaching that "Jesus is the Christ", I believe that in part it speaks of combatting the heresy that Jesus was a mortal ordinary man who was inhabited by the eternal Spirit Christ / Messiah.) The whole person is "translated" into eternity. The resurrection that Paul speaks of is being translated into an eternity with God, instead of being translated into an eternity without God. On the surface it may seem like the holism vs. dualism argument is simply a matter of semantics, but holism can clear away many questions, like how come the work of Christ has efficacy for the wicked who also seem to receive immortal physical bodies.

I do not think it is heresy to say the Jesus Christ was a man who contained the full Godhead bodily. Paul says this very thing.

The resurrection that Paul speaks of is of the body that believers will receive. Read 1 Corinthians and remember that he is speaking to a Church of believers. Paul is not talking about non-believers.

Do you have the verse that you are referring to where it states that non-believers will receive this immortal body just like the one believers will receive? I am curious where you are drawing this from.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
Didaskomenos, I would like to make sure that something is clear here about our discussion. It is not your views or beliefs that I am making a point about. And I don't want you to think that I am attacking your character as it seems you might be thinking.

I am trying to point out to you that if you want to persuade anyone of what you have to say, you cannot just tell others what they believe without ever asking them anything about what they believe. You cannot just assume you know what people believe, especially people whom you have never spoken with. By doing this you are showing that you don't care what they believe. Whether this is true or not, this is how it comes off. And that is what matters when speaking with people you don't even know.

You are intelligent and have a lot of great things to say. You have the opportunities to make a difference in this world. I can see this by how you write. I am not trying to pick on you, but rather pointing out something you may not see yourself doing.

I apologize for being rough about pointing this out, but it seemed as if you either don't see this, or just don't want to admit it. If it is the latter, then fine, there is no need. I just to make sure that you understand you are gifted and have a lot to offer and would be better heard if you just asked people what they believe instead of telling them.

May God Bless you Didaskomenos!
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Critias said:
It does help to better understand your position, thanks. :)

I just don't agree with your previous statemen:

"The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life, were both forbidden while Adam was in perfect communion with God."

The reason I don't agree with this is because of Genesis 2:16-17. God gave the Tree of Life for Adam to eat, Genesis doesn't state that the Tree of Life was forbidden for Adam before he sinned. That is why I thought you made a mistake in how you stated this.

I don't think you can present an argument that states Adam didn't eat of the Tree of Life. The Bible doesn't state that he did or didn't. So either position is an argument from silence. The best answer that one can give is I don't know.

I believe that either position is possible. The reason I think Adam could have eaten from the Tree of Life is because we can receive God's grace and then turn away from it. We can look to Paul's letters where he states that his readers started with the Spirit and have now turned away from Him.

So can we.

I stand corrected. You are right. Only the Tree of Knowledge was actually forbidden while Adam was in communion with God. :)

However, Genesis 3:22-24 clearly indicates that Adam had not yet eaten from the Tree of Life.

22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Something else to put things in better context -

Adam knew good and evil immediately after only one bite of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

One bite....Immediate.

Immediate knowledge. Immediate spiritual death.

One bite....Immediate....In the day...The very moment.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Critias, where does the Bible say that there is an immortal soul? I am most curious, since I stopped believing that some time ago finding that there was little or no Biblical evidence for it. The idea of an immortal spirit renting a mortal body is an ancient Greek belief that in fact inspired the Gnostic heresy, which made statements like God couldn't have been incarnated since matter is evil, physical sins like pornography and fornication don't matter since the body is evil anyway, asceticism is the best way to holiness since it gets rid of the influence of matter which is evil ...

To be honest I would be the first to admit that the Bible is (deliberately?) unclear about precisely what happens to the person in the afterlife, whether righteous or wicked. We know for sure that the righteous enjoy eternal bliss while the wicked, eternal perdition; what exactly these conditions entail are not made very clear, however. In some places hell is described as burning fire, in others as outer darkness (but how can fire be dark? Doesn't fire produce light?), and if one takes the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man literally there may even be interaction to an extent between the eternally blessed and the eternally suffering. Nevertheless this is my synthesis of whatever small clues there are in the Bible. I am relatively sure this is the best synthesis I can come up with; though I am sure that I am probably wrong in some way or another. :p

(And yes, most of this comes from 1 Corinthians 15. Interesting passage. Wonder why we don't baptize the dead today. :p)

Firstly, we know for sure that the destiny of both believer and unbeliever are eternal. We also know that these destinies involve bodily interaction with their surroundings (new city, lake of fire, etc.) and therefore we come to a conclusion firstly that both believer and unbeliever have eternal bodies. The question is what bodies will they have? This is the main focus of Paul's 1 Corinthians 15. I believe that the wicked and the righteous will have the same kind of body (and hence, Jesus's death and resurrection cannot be for the purpose of making available to us the spiritual resurrection alone), but the same kind of body to different destinies.

Why do I say that? 1 Cor 15:52 has "the dead will be raised incorruptible" - I take that to mean the dead, both wicked and righteous. The word "incorruptible" seems ambiguous to me, since it is even translated "sincerity" in Ephesians 6:24 and Titus 2:7. I would take it to mean that all humanity will be "translated" into eternity, and thus will be given by God to all. But the wicked will carry these translated bodies to the second death - in that sense (alone?) their new bodies will be mortal i.e. subject to death (because the wicked choose to subject them to death), yet having the same nature as the bodies of the righteous. Whereas the new bodies of the righteous will not be subject to the second death because God forbids it from touching them again.

As I said, this is speculation to the highest degree, and I may not be aware of Scripture that contradicts my argument. I am here to be refuted and to learn. :)
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟25,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Critias,

What can I say? I suppose you're new to online forum discussions. Let me have my turn at giving you advice. We do not have time to keep posting one or two sentence posts asking questions on every possible inexplicit issue: we must formulate a cogent, informative post that expresses our viewpoints in all necessary detail, and expect people to fill in the holes. It's impractical and somewhat rude to insist that I have to stall every discussion to ask, "So what do you believe about this?" and "this" and "this", so that we never get any discussion about our actual beliefs done. You are responsible for what you bring to the discussion, and for correcting misconceptions about what you say. Hence my bewilderment at the fact that you have not actually come out and stated your views. You're in an origins theology forum, and you've yet to actually come out and tell everyone where you're coming from. It is necessary to fill in the blanks that posters leave if we are to have any real discussion. The hit and run, "I have a problem with this" style postings strike regulars as something like warfare from the bushes. Even before you started your overt "How do you know I do/don't believe X?" routine, you gave the impression by your reticence that you wanted to be mysterious, and keep us playing a guessing game. As shernren hinted at earlier, we don't have the luxury to sit around and shoot back and forth 20 questions until we know exactly where one another stands. Posts approaching "full disclosure", especially from newbies, would show us a full "flesh man" so that we don't synthesize straw men from elusive postings as is otherwise necessary.

It's how these discussions work! All the time someone has to reply with a, "But I don't believe that, I believe this" post, and that's how we take care of misconceptions. Not sermons on the dangers of coming to conclusions too soon in solving the Case of the Shadowy Belief System. This seems like you're trying to hide something, or worse, that you're purposefully diverting our attention from the subject at hand.

Hopefully you'll tell someone else (since you're still playing hard-to-get for me) what you actually believe so that we can understand where you're coming from when you post.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟25,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
TheBear said:
However, Genesis 3:22-24 clearly indicates that Adam had not yet eaten from the Tree of Life.

Actually, it's not so clear as that. The eating of the Tree of Life was part of the normal diet ("you may eat of every tree of the Garden"). I think people see the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (it only took one bite) and conclude prematurely that the Tree of Life worked the same way. The physical death of the Curse came the moment humanity no longer had access to the Garden. In other words, they had to continue to get their "fruit of life" to stay immortal. That's why the angel guarded the way into the Garden. It wasn't a "little dab'll do ya" sort of deal like the Tree of Knowledge was.

That's my impression, anyways. From what I can tell, it's the more commonly-held belief among the TE's on this board. But, as we all know, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right ;)
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
Didaskomenos said:
Critias,

What can I say? I suppose you're new to online forum discussions. Let me have my turn at giving you advice. We do not have time to keep posting one or two sentence posts asking questions on every possible inexplicit issue: we must formulate a cogent, informative post that expresses our viewpoints in all necessary detail, and expect people to fill in the holes. It's impractical and somewhat rude to insist that I have to stall every discussion to ask, "So what do you believe about this?" and "this" and "this", so that we never get any discussion about our actual beliefs done. You are responsible for what you bring to the discussion, and for correcting misconceptions about what you say. Hence my bewilderment at the fact that you have not actually come out and stated your views. You're in an origins theology forum, and you've yet to actually come out and tell everyone where you're coming from. It is necessary to fill in the blanks that posters leave if we are to have any real discussion. The hit and run, "I have a problem with this" style postings strike regulars as something like warfare from the bushes. Even before you started your overt "How do you know I do/don't believe X?" routine, you gave the impression by your reticence that you wanted to be mysterious, and keep us playing a guessing game. As shernren hinted at earlier, we don't have the luxury to sit around and shoot back and forth 20 questions until we know exactly where one another stands. Posts approaching "full disclosure", especially from newbies, would show us a full "flesh man" so that we don't synthesize straw men from elusive postings as is otherwise necessary.

It's how these discussions work! All the time someone has to reply with a, "But I don't believe that, I believe this" post, and that's how we take care of misconceptions. Not sermons on the dangers of coming to conclusions too soon in solving the Case of the Shadowy Belief System. This seems like you're trying to hide something, or worse, that you're purposefully diverting our attention from the subject at hand.

Hopefully you'll tell someone else (since you're still playing hard-to-get for me) what you actually believe so that we can understand where you're coming from when you post.



I find it sad that you justify yourself here by saying you don’t have enough time to ask anyone what they believe here. Yet, you had enough time to tell me what I believed, but not enough time to ask me what I believe.



I explained myself well enough to understood where I am coming from, for the issue I have addressed: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.



I would think it would be your responsibility to ask me what I believe before you start to argue against what I believe. And if I didn’t give you the information you wanted to use to prove me wrong, then you could have at least asked. Instead you were not even courteous to ask, instead you told me what I believed and then told me why I am wrong to believe what you tell me I believe.



And your excuse…You don’t have enough time to ask me a question about what I believe.



This all leads to me to the conclusion that you don’t care what others believe, you just want to prove how you are right. So there is no point in telling you anything since you have shown that you don’t have the slightest care about what I believe.



I hope one day you learn that this is not a way to have a discussion with people. You will never be effective in persuading anyone of anything with this type of approach.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Didaskomenos said:
Actually, it's not so clear as that. The eating of the Tree of Life was part of the normal diet ("you may eat of every tree of the Garden"). I think people see the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (it only took one bite) and conclude prematurely that the Tree of Life worked the same way. The physical death of the Curse came the moment humanity no longer had access to the Garden. In other words, they had to continue to get their "fruit of life" to stay immortal. That's why the angel guarded the way into the Garden. It wasn't a "little dab'll do ya" sort of deal like the Tree of Knowledge was.

That's my impression, anyways. From what I can tell, it's the more commonly-held belief among the TE's on this board. But, as we all know, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right ;)



So, let me see if I'm following this right. :)

God created Adam immortal. But, in order for Adam to stay immortal, Adam had to eat from the Tree of Life, not once, but an ongoing thing....kind of like an 'immortality re-fueling' process.

Am I on the right track? Is this the way some view it?
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟25,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Critias,
Do you want me to beg forgiveness for assuming you believed something that you hinted at and should have disclosed clearly yourself? Ain't gonna happen. And I don't see you convincing anyone with your jigsaw puzzle posts. Don't you worry about whom I do and don't persuade. At least I satisfy the most fundamental part of persuasion: making my own positions known and clear.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Didaskomenos said:
God did not create Adam immortal. Immortality was granted by God through the Tree of Life.

I agree. Man was created mortal, just like all life. :)

But what scripture indicates that Adam already consumed from the Tree of Life? Not one.

22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

I keep going back to this passage of Genesis. By any reasonable interpretation, Adam had not yet eaten from the Tree of Life, and therefore remained mortal.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
shernren said:
Critias, where does the Bible say that there is an immortal soul? I am most curious, since I stopped believing that some time ago finding that there was little or no Biblical evidence for it. The idea of an immortal spirit renting a mortal body is an ancient Greek belief that in fact inspired the Gnostic heresy, which made statements like God couldn't have been incarnated since matter is evil, physical sins like pornography and fornication don't matter since the body is evil anyway, asceticism is the best way to holiness since it gets rid of the influence of matter which is evil ...

Ecclesiates 12:7

The body dies, the soul returns to where it came from. As I said the soul doesn't die like the body does. Clarification probably was needed for where I said it won't die. I meant that it won't die as the body dies. The body will cease to be no more and Christ will give us spiritual bodies upon the resurrection. The Bible doesn't talk about the soul dying like the body does, but rather says it departs from the body.

shernren said:
To be honest I would be the first to admit that the Bible is (deliberately?) unclear about precisely what happens to the person in the afterlife, whether righteous or wicked. We know for sure that the righteous enjoy eternal bliss while the wicked, eternal perdition; what exactly these conditions entail are not made very clear, however. In some places hell is described as burning fire, in others as outer darkness (but how can fire be dark? Doesn't fire produce light?), and if one takes the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man literally there may even be interaction to an extent between the eternally blessed and the eternally suffering. Nevertheless this is my synthesis of whatever small clues there are in the Bible. I am relatively sure this is the best synthesis I can come up with; though I am sure that I am probably wrong in some way or another. :p

I can't directly tell you your opinion on something is wrong because it is your opinion.

I would agree that the Bible is not specific about what goes on when we die. Obviously we don't need, but rather trust and have faith.

I personally don't see the Rich Man parable to be a literal account of something that happened. I see it to be a parable because Luke starts it off like he does other parables.

shernren said:
(And yes, most of this comes from 1 Corinthians 15. Interesting passage. Wonder why we don't baptize the dead today. :p)

Firstly, we know for sure that the destiny of both believer and unbeliever are eternal. We also know that these destinies involve bodily interaction with their surroundings (new city, lake of fire, etc.) and therefore we come to a conclusion firstly that both believer and unbeliever have eternal bodies. The question is what bodies will they have? This is the main focus of Paul's 1 Corinthians 15. I believe that the wicked and the righteous will have the same kind of body (and hence, Jesus's death and resurrection cannot be for the purpose of making available to us the spiritual resurrection alone), but the same kind of body to different destinies.

I don't know if we can say for certain that there is a bodily interaction for those who denied Christ. Do you have specific verses you are refering to? I do think all will be resurrected, but only those in Christ will receive the bodies Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 15. I believe that because Paul is specifically talking about those in Christ.

I don't agree with your belief/opinion that all will receive incorruptable and immortal bodies, whether they accept Jesus or not.

If you take a further look into Paul's teachings, you will see that he says if there is no resurrection, then we are all to be the most pitied. And he is referring to Christians only. This is more about saying that if there is no resurrection then Jesus didn't raise from the dead like He said He would. So there is meaning in the resurrection as well in His death. It is my belief that on the Cross Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins and at the resurrection He showed one that He is who said He is and that we too will partake in being resurrected as He was, incorruptable, imperishable, and immortal.

shernren said:
Why do I say that? 1 Cor 15:52 has "the dead will be raised incorruptible" - I take that to mean the dead, both wicked and righteous. The word "incorruptible" seems ambiguous to me, since it is even translated "sincerity" in Ephesians 6:24 and Titus 2:7. I would take it to mean that all humanity will be "translated" into eternity, and thus will be given by God to all. But the wicked will carry these translated bodies to the second death - in that sense (alone?) their new bodies will be mortal i.e. subject to death (because the wicked choose to subject them to death), yet having the same nature as the bodies of the righteous. Whereas the new bodies of the righteous will not be subject to the second death because God forbids it from touching them again.

As I said, this is speculation to the highest degree, and I may not be aware of Scripture that contradicts my argument. I am here to be refuted and to learn. :)

1 Corinthians 15:52, I believe, is only talking about believers. If we put it into context, Paul is talking about those in Christ:

"50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When 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."
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟25,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Perhaps an apology is in order. Or at least an acknowledgement that I may have been mistaken about the specifics of your beliefs, as per the respondent's part of the bargain. Is it too much to ask, however, that you not fly off the handle when this kind of thing happens? For example, I did not lecture the Bear when he assumed that I believed that Genesis says God created man immortal and required "re-fueling". I simply corrected him.

That's the way these things work. The whole reason we went on and on and on about what I thought you believed is because I was trying to show you why I believed it in the first place, not because I have some insatiable desire to continue to read your mind.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
Didaskomenos said:
Critias,
Do you want me to beg forgiveness for assuming you believed something that you hinted at and should have disclosed clearly yourself? Ain't gonna happen. And I don't see you convincing anyone with your jigsaw puzzle posts. Don't you worry about whom I do and don't persuade. At least I satisfy the most fundamental part of persuasion: making my own positions known and clear.

Didaskomenos, if I wanted an apology I would have asked for one. I am not concerned about receiving one.

It is so nice of you to blame me, for you telling me what I believe. :sigh:

Edit: I just read your new post above. It is ok Didaskomenos. I wasn't seeking an apology, I was just trying to say that if you want to be heard, you might have a better chance at it if you didn't tell others what they believed.

Again, I am sorry that I kept trying to point this out.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.