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.
Do you think we will keep on needing to be resurrected too? Genesis describes a one off event. Perhaps they would go on feeding of the tree of life, but that isn't what this passage is saying and the perfect tense chosen to say it, which is that eating just once would give them eternal life.
Would you care to rewrite that?
Ok, so you can't back up you case.
I showed you Paul was talking about Adam's creation, made from the earth of dust, and that Paul says Adam was just like us.
So Revelation is not a restoration of what was lost in the fall?
No attempt to address the way Paul compares the original flesh and blood creation with the resurrection throughout that long section of 1Cor 15? Being perishable and mortal is part of the first creation, it is only take away in the resurrection.
Remember you claimed Adam had access to everything and was partaking of everything we see in Revelation I pointed out Genesis said no such thing. You claimed Revelation didn't depict a consumation either. So I showed you it did.
They just got a day older the day they ate the fruit, that is not 'surely die' which they were told would happen the day they ate the fruit.
Yes the kind of death Adam died the day he ate the fruit.
Why don't you take what I said and show how the vague assertion answers it. With out that, it is just another non answer.
I did provide verses to back up my claims like Psalm 148 and Romans 1
I am afraid Greg can be a bit hard to follow. As for us? Sin definitely corrupts and brings bondage. I don't think we have been physically changed though, that is all still ahead of us in the resurrection.
Actually it doesn't say first things of the original creation. We know where in Genesis sin and death and mourning came from hence your substitution of former with first makes no difference. If you want the very first, in the beginning was the word.
You simply showed how God makes the provisions seen here (post-fall). We were already aware of the kind of provisions being made post-fall.
Science doesn't tell us how to interpret scripture. It can show us interpretations that are wrong. Reality has a way of doing that. The Jews expected Messiah to come as a conquering military commander, he didn't. Reality tells us their interpretation was wrong, but it this historical fact didn't tell us how to reinterpret the Messianic prophecies. Jesus taught us that himself. The early Christians expected Jesus to come back in their generation. He didn't. That shows clearer than anything else that their interpretation was wrong. It doesn't tell us how to interpret eschatological prophecies.
So Adam's earthly portion was created mortal, perishable, flesh and blood, and unable to inherit the kingdom of God.
Yes Paul does say all those things when he was comparing the consequences of Adam's sin with Christ's redemption. He does that a lot. Unfortunately in 1Cor 15:45-54, Paul is comparing the original creation which we share with Adam, with the new creation we will share with Christ.
Jesus wasn't perishable and mortal? Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil... 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect.
I thought that would have been obvious. Gen 3:6 she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Revelation shows the redeemed receiving all that was promised in the tree of life, the fulness of what was symbolised by a fruit tree. There is no need to show them actually eating.
No substitution. The word is first protos. Which came first creation or fall? If the conditions after the fall are different from the creation and mortality was the result of the fall, then pain and death are not the first things. If, as Revelation tells us, pain and death are part of the first things, then they must have been there from the creation. You can't argue with what the text of Revelation says, all you can do is appeal back to Genesis, but you haven't established you case there either.
You should have read down a bit further
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him. ta prota means the first things, The logos may have been first, but 'all things' refer to the entire creation. That is what John is talking about passing away in Rev 20:4, the entire first creation passing away into a new creation.So? I am simply showing you how pain and death can be part of the first things, part of the original creation.
Cutting them off from the tree of life only cut them of from an immortality they could have had if they ate, not an immortality they had in themselves. Whatever you arguments about diminishing lifespan, that was all later. They were told they would surely die on the day they ate the fruit. They did not physically die the day they ate the fruit, so you cannot say their physical death years later was the consequence of their sin. You need to back up your case from scripture. What does the text tell us happened on the day they ate the fruit.
More vague assertions.
You should have read down a bit further
Bit of a vague generalisation there Greg.
Not sure how that retranslation of 'behold man has become like one of us' helps your point. Eat is still eat in the perfect tense. Sounds dodgy though, Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil before the ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why say 'behold' if God is describing something that wasn't there any more?
Sorry that made no sense.
I'll take that as a yes then.
You can't just grab bits and pieces of the chapter and rearrange them whatever way you like. Just because he mentioned the consequences of sin in verse 22, it doesn't mean he is still discussing the fall in verse 47. Look at the context.
He certainly does compare that back in verse 22. When we sin, we die the same death Adam died the day he sinned. Spiritual death. When we die physically years later, it is for the same reason Adam died physically, because his body made of the dust of the earth is perishable and mortal.
And it is as a figure Paul can say (present tense) in Adam all die. Adam also means 'Mankind' and all of us sin and die as part of the human race. Our being part of that figurative man and sharing in the same death, Paul takes as a figurative picture of being party of Christ and sharing in his resurrection.
You distinguish between Jesus was made of dust like we were, and perishability and mortality which you say is the result of sin. Jesus didn't suddenly become mortal on the cross, he shared our mortality and our perishable flesh all his life.
Sorry no idea what you are saying here. How does 'having already been mortal' mean he is cut off from the tree of life? And how does that answer my question:
Genesis does not tell us mortality and perishability were the consequences of sin. Revelation doesn't say access to the tree of life produced the resurrection, the tree of life made you live forever if you ate from it, not simply had access to it. Perhaps if you could show Adam had the consequence we see in Revelation instead of just assuming he had.
I have answered your quibble about the word in the beginning, Revelation is clearly talking about the whole world created by the Logos not the eternal logos itself. Which leaves you having to deal with suffering and death as part of the first things, when they clearly aren't in your understanding of scripture. Perhaps if you could show physical death was the result of the fall, you might have an argument, instead of assuming it must have been, and using you assumption to contradicts the clear description of suffering and death as part of God original creation
First thing God created was the material universe. Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Remember how we are mortal and perishable because we are made of the dust of this material world?
That certainly clears that up.
sigh.
How about showing that from the text?
Assuming it was further consumption. You haven't show that. At the same time, you are actually agreeing with me, that their bodies were created mortal and perishable and could only live forever by eating from the tree of life. Their bodies weren't changed by the fall. They remained the same. they just didn't have the tree of life anymore.
Which has nothing to do with the question
What you are describing is a slow starvation. They were told they would surely die the day they ate the fruit. Your slow starvation doesn't fit. Not to mention the fact we are not told their life was sustained by eating form the tree of life, or that they ate from the tree of life. Instead Genesis tells us that a single act of eating from the tree of life would have resulted in them living forever, and ascribes their eventual death years later to them being made from dust. Isn't much better to build up an understanding of the text from what it actually say rather than just making it all up?
Sorry Greg, I'm not interested in playing "no, you are" games.
The first man (where Paul is quoting) was made from dust and the last man, already made from dust, was made from heaven. You still think simply being made from dust means mortality. Paul had no reason to cite the spiritual aspect of Adam the same way he had no reason to cite the material aspect of Jesus. What is the predominant influence today? The fleshy portion. For that Adam is used. The creation of man from the dust of the earth goes back to Adam and therein lies the source for emphasis. In Jesus it is the imperishable which is throned, and for that Jesus is used.
Actually no. Through Adam we are made in sin the inherit the consequences of that sin. "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners." "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Everyone born in Adam's likeness (sons of man) inherit that state (ban from the tree of life and the consequences of such). It is only when the son of man is raised, it is rewarded ("Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up").
Again, simply being made from the dust of the earth is not equal to perishability. I already told you that Jesus was made from the dust of the earth, so was Melchizedek. Jesus pre and post resurrection, even when he sat to eat with his disciples post-resurrection, was made of dust. You don't seem to realize that it is the perishable putting on the imperishable that makes the difference, not the lack or presence of the persishable.
The human race post-fall. No one is denying we are part of the post-fall human race.
If Jesus wasn't immortal before the crucifixion, he would not have been able to remain alive through revivifying his own body.
That's the purpose of the tree of life, to sustain form.
Adam would simply have remained dead. He would not have been cut off and banned from the tree of life at that moment as he would already be banned.
Perhaps you can show the eating from the tree of life in Revelation. Adam was warned of death, cut off from the tree of life, and there are changes now being imposed (including a life span and an even further reduction after another withdrawal). This simply means that he benefited from something being now taken away and thus the consequences.
As just given.
The imposition of a life span and an even further reduction marks physical death. I need to show that there was a lifespan imposed, that access to the tree of life signifies immortality, Man had access to the tree of life, and man was banned from the tree of life. All these things have already been done.
I could go all the way back to the creation of the image of man and not the subsequent creation of his material portion. God's image of man came first. I have already shown you that the invisible was created and what was seen was made out of the things unseen. The invisible precedes the visible in the sequence of created things and it is through the invisible the promise of non-suffering takes root. . You changed the word former to first. What came first, the fall or the resurrection in the revelation passage? My take on this is you don't know what heavens depicts. When Paul said "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows," he is talking about an invisible portion.
I have already shown you that it is access to the tree of life which counts. I've already told you that just because you eat in the morning (single action) doesn't mean that food is not continuously required.
They were banned from the tree of life. That's what marks the death. Access to the tree of life marks the resurrection.
And they were banned from (the tree of) life. This in itself is a death.
Nor do they have to speak of an eating in Revelation. Access automatically implies the benefit in both cases.
They begin to fall under that law. You still haven't addressed the fact that access to the tree of life is what counts, "To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God," that it is compared to Jesus, "To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne," and that revelation never depicts the consumption.
