For Zeus: The Rez Body [Archive]

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 03:51 PM

Today @ 06:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121262#post121262)
jpholding:

Attention head of the Greek pantheon,

Hi JP - note, this is not my main reason for being here, but I will happily discuss this with you, albeit probably slowly (you can see I only average a couple of posts a day, anyway).

Zeus:
πνευματικοσ is an adjective, and it means what adjectives mean: it means "having to do with the spirit."

jpholding:
Not the full story. As Murray Harris notes, Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning. So it has to do with functional or ethical issues of spirit, not composition.

I would simply point out that functional and compositional issues are very hard to separate -- they are not mutually exclusive. How can you have a different function without a different composition? When Paul talks about a "spiritual body", by your logic that can mean a body that functions spiritually. This is in contrast to a body that functions materially. The type of function would thus imply a specific composition, and two different functions imply two different compositions.

There is another objection to your interpretation. The noun that πνευματικοσ refers to is of course πνευμα, which means spirit (or, literally, wind or breath). If a NT writer wanting to say that something was composed of spirit, what adjective would they use? In the NT, πνευματικοσ is used exclusively. This implies that the same word would be used for both a functional/ethical connection or a compositional description. More on this below.

The strongest evidence against your particular point, however, is that the Greek authority you quote agrees completely with my view. In his in depth discussion of this very subject, Harris concludes:

The restoration, however, is not a reconstitution of the original body that was interred, but a new structure patterned on the resurrection body of Christ. "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (I Cor.15:49).

Tenney, who was for many years Dean of Wheaton College Graduate School, is certainly not alone in maintaining this view of the resurrection of believers. It is no exaggeration to say that the majority of theologians, whatever their view of Scripture and revelation, hold a similar view. True, others may use different terminology in describing the relationship of the "spiritual body" to the physical body. Some speak of "continuity of corporeal life" (G.B. Stevens), "somatic identity" (G.E. Ladd), "identity of form if not of substance, as the grain of stalk is the same in kind, though not numerically the same, or composed of the same particles, as the seed out of which it springs" (A.B. Bruce), identity of occupant but not of dwelling (C.R. Bowen), or historical continuity, with the same "I" inhabiting first an earthly, then a heavenly body (W. G. Kummel). Common to all these proposals is the insistence that for Christians the continuity between the earthly and heavenly bodies is personal, not material.

To conclude: our final difference between the resurrection of believers and of Jesus is this. In his case there was, to use another Tenney phrase, "continuity...of substance" as well as identity of person. In their case [believers] there will be "continuity of human personality" but "discontinuity of substance."

Murray J. Harris, in From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament, pp.412-413.

It means those that are led by the Holy Spirit. Is this really so hard? The Holy Spirit has no physical body.

jpholding:
You tried here to leap from "led by" to associating a property of the Spirit with the leading. Not valid.

Pehaps. It is clear to me, however, that Paul and other NT authors use πνευματικοσ in two related senses: sometimes meaning strictly "non-material," sometimes referring to the Holy Spirit (which is itself non-material).

When Paul says a "spiritual body" that is what he means - a body that is of the spirit, not of the flesh, not of material, not of natural things. The spiritual body that will inherit the kingdom of God is not of flesh and blood.

jpholding:
Are you aware that "flesh and blood" is a Semitic metaphor for human weakness -- not literal "flesh and blood"?

Of course. Metaphoric meaning does not rule out literal meaning -- something I'm sure Socrates would agree with. Again, I think you have to take things in context.

Zeus:
He does not mean a material, flesh body in any sense.

Given:

1) The solid Jewish record of the rez body as physical;
2) Gundry's landmark study of soma (body) showing that it ALWAYS means the physical aspect of the person (which would make "spiritual body" as you seem to read it a contradiction in terms)

...it is clear he does mean a material body, one whose material has been substantially changed but remains in essential one-to-one identity with the flesh body it is raised from.

Let's read the passage:

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?"

Paul begins by answering the question "what kind of body will be resurrected"? The fact that the Jewish background viewed the rez as physical is not an argument against my view. In fact, I beleive that Paul was answering and contradicting this common view of the resurrection in this passage, and that is exactly why this question was even posed: " And with what body do they come?"

36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grainperhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

Paul sets up his argument - what is sown is not what the plant turns into, indicating that the body before and after resurrection will be different in composition somehow. He emphasizes that God can change bodies at will.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.

Again, he is setting up his argument by analogy -- there are different kinds of flesh, of different composition, as there are different kinds of bodies of different composition. The differences in all examples are not ethical nor merely functional. The flesh of a fish is not simultaneously the flesh of a bird or of man. Conversely, the flesh of man is not the flesh of fish or birds or animals.

40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

We know that Sun and moon are of different composition; whether Paul did or not is debatable, but I think compelling. I'm sure he understood that the earth was of different composition from the Sun. Note that here the word for "bodies" is "soma", so "soma" does not always refer to human bodies, but also to celestial bodies such as the sun and moon and earth, which of course are of very different composition from living bodies. (The bodies of grains and seeds in 37 and 38 are also "soma").

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead.

Here Paul links the examples given above with the bodies before and after resurrection.

The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Clearly emphasizing that there are two different types of bodies, and answering the question posed initially "what kind of body will be resurrected"? It is not the natural body that will be resurrected, but the spiritual one.

45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Again, the contrast between dust and spirit is emphasized.

46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, 1made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

This passage clearly contradicts your assertion that the spiritual body is not spirit in composition. Paul says "As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.." This is speaking of composition, what the two types of bodies are made of. χοικοσ is a term of composition -- made of earth. In contrast, heavenly bodies are made of heavenly stuff (spirit), not of dust or earth.

One last point. I take it that you, like Socrates, see Paul as speaking of two bodies: (1) a fully material, corporeal body, corresponding to the normal flesh, bone, and blood body that we usually think of as our body, and (2) a spiritual body that is simply the material body of (1), except controlled or led by the spirit.

Now, if that is the meaning of πνευματικοσ, i.e. "controlled by the spirit", you run into a contradiction. As Socrates pointed out, Paul uses πνευματικοσ in other contexts:

1 Cor 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Ga 6:1
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meeknes

If πνευματικοσ here means "controlled by spirit", what of the people in these two verses? They are πνευματικοσ, and they have material bodies, and thus their bodies are controlled by the spirit (a point I agree with). But then, by your and Socrates' logic, these people in these verses, while not resurrected, already have the "spiritual bodies" which we will have at the resurrection.

That, however, is clearly an incorrect reading of Scripture.

Z

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 03:53 PM

Today @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121359#post121359)
Dee Dee Warren:

The phrase spiritual (read to mean nonmaterial)body is a complete oxymoron.

Only if you assume that bodies must be material. However, that is the very assumption I beleive Paul is contradicting. There are material bodies and there are spiritual bodies.

Z

jpholding

June 12th 2003, 04:42 PM

To the head of the pantheon:

happily discuss this with you, albeit probably slowly (you can see I only average a couple of posts a day, anyway).

No problemo. Leaves me free to manage my 10-12 threads per day. :thumb:

I would simply point out that functional and compositional issues are very hard to separate -- they are not mutually exclusive.

I don't find them hard to separate at all. One is what something is made of; the other is what something does. They are indeed mutually exclusive in terms of category distinction; but they are not in terms of action and results, and you confuse the two here.

When Paul talks about a "spiritual body", by your logic that can mean a body that functions spiritually. This is in contrast to a body that functions materially.

Correct.

The type of function would thus imply a specific composition, and two different functions imply two different compositions.

Oh, but that is quite sure: The former body is composed of natural elements of weakness ("flesh and blood"); the new one is composed of glorified matter, having a one to one correspondence in identity with the previous body. So Paul, so Jewish thought of the day.

If a NT writer wanting to say that something was composed of spirit, what adjective would they use?

They wouldn't. They would say that something WAS a spirit, not that it was MADE OF spirit. In any event, this does not answer the point about the -ikos ending. If anything you must tell us what ending would be used for a "made of" and give examples.

The strongest evidence against your particular point, however, is that the Greek authority you quote agrees completely with my view.

Beg pardon? How does this work against the linguistic data specifically? It doesn't. You're saying, "Because Harris ends up with a different view (one contrary, by the by, to Jewish conceptions of the day) you can't use him where he agrees with you up to this point." No, I'm afraid I don't fall for that. :smile: The -ikos ending does not sway one way or the other the identity question.

Pehaps. It is clear to me, however, that Paul and other NT authors use &pi;&nu;&epsilon;&upsilon;&mu;&alpha;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigma; in two related senses: sometimes meaning strictly "non-material," sometimes referring to the Holy Spirit (which is itself non-material).

*JP rings bell at front desk and requests examples*

Of course. Metaphoric meaning does not rule out literal meaning

It does, however, place a substantial burden on you to show the literal meaning is intended -- especially in light of the soma study of Gundry I alluded to. Moreover, note that in 1 Cor. "flesh and blood" is poetically paralleled to "corruption" which indicates the moral metaphor.

Again, I think you have to take things in context.

I do. :smile: The context of ancient Judaism notably.

Paul begins by answering the question "what kind of body will be resurrected"? The fact that the Jewish background viewed the rez as physical is not an argument against my view.

I'm afraid it rather is. Mere denial is not going to be sufficient. The problem especially here is that 1 Cor. 15 is an answer to those who deny resurrection, and Paul specifically appeals to the apostolic witness of the Risen Jesus (3ff) as a way of saying in proof, "we should know what a rez body is like, because we have seen and experienced one" -- and I doubt if you will claim that there was no direct identity between the former and riden body of Jesus. If you do, then you are making the theory fit the data, not the other way around.

[i]Paul sets up his argument - what is sown is not what the plant turns into, indicating that the body before and after resurrection will be different in composition somehow.

I do rather agree -- mundane flesh versus glorified flesh. Add the right number of protons and neutrons and away we go. :brow: This argument you are making will not favor your view over mine at all.

Note that here the word for "bodies" is "soma", so "soma" does not always refer to human bodies,

It always refers to PHYSICAL bodies and in reference to humans always refers to THEIR bodies.

It is not the natural body that will be resurrected, but the spiritual one.

And again, this as it stands will not favor your view over mine, nor does it make for somehow non-contiguous identity of the two bodies.

This passage clearly contradicts your assertion that the spiritual body is not spirit [i]in composition. Paul says "As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.." This is speaking of composition, what the two types of bodies are made of.

Once again: Molecularly alter the dust, and it assumes a new identity -- and this does not say that new composition is spirit; it only says it is "heavenly" and that does not mean "made of spirit". You are jumping to a conclusion that spirit is the only "heavenly stuff" in the category.

controlled by the spirit (a point I agree with). But then, by your and Socrates' logic, these people in these verses, while not resurrected, already have the "spiritual bodies" which we will have at the resurrection.

Rather not. They have spiritual orientations and behaviors, as shown as well by that they are told to act a certain way. Their bodies are not mentioned.

Nice try -- but you leap rather too much with those thunderbolts. :smile:

johnransom

June 12th 2003, 05:25 PM

* holds out his bowl to receive the circulating but quickly disappearing popcorn.

* pulls back his bowl, remembering he's on an Atkins diet, runs to the fridge, grabs the spray bottle of butter sauce and starts squirting it down his throat.

P.S. Here (http://www.equip.org/free/DR165.htm)'s an interesting sidebar at CRI giving Geisler's take on Harris and a historical perspective on the whole debate.

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 05:36 PM

Today @ 09:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121398#post121398)
jpholding:

controlled by the spirit (a point I agree with). But then, by your and Socrates' logic, these people in these verses, while not resurrected, already have the "spiritual bodies" which we will have at the resurrection.

Rather not. They have spiritual orientations and behaviors, as shown as well by that they are told to act a certain way. Their bodies are not mentioned.

Of course those people had bodies, whether mentioned or not, and it states they were being "controlled spiritually" according to your definition. Thus their bodies were controlled spiritually, which is how you are defining the post-resurrection body. I don't really see how you can get out of that.

But perhaps I don't really understand your point of view. It seems to me it might just come down to the nature of "spirit." Are you simply saying that, though spirit and material are not equivalent, spirit is material, just a special sort of glorified material? That appears to be the case since you state:

It is clear he does mean a material body, one whose material has been substantially changed but remains in essential one-to-one identity with the flesh body it is raised from.

If so, then we are at an impasse, since I won't argue against that. My feeling is this is incorrect -- but I personally don't really know what spirit is made of, and I don't think there is any good Biblical indication. However, I don't think that was Socrates argument. This seems more like a pure semantic argument than anything very substantial. Regardless of your exact view on the nature of spirit, they are clearly very different (since Paul is always contrasting them), and we clearly are resurrected spiritually, and not physically (by Paul's definition). Correct?

Z

Reasonable

June 12th 2003, 05:38 PM

Interesting discussion. I am leaning towards Zeus' arguments at the moment. Two thoughts on statements made by JP.

The point of 1 Cor 15:50 (Flesh and blood not inheret God's Kingdom) meaning fleshly tendancy instead of literal flesh and blood.

I think this is a non-sequiter. A main point of Paul's argument is about 'what type of body will people have.' He then goes and talks about fleshly bodies made from dust and spiritual bodies. Of course, you two are discussing what it means to be a spiritual body but it appears obvious by the mention of "flesh" in verse 39, "physical" in verse 44, and "dust" in verses 47-49 that Paul is discussing the body, not the moral tendencies and practices of imperfect humans. Then, in the very next verse, he again mentions flesh and blood. What justification is there, from this context, to jump away from the whole point he was talking about in the previous 15 verses regarding fleshly, physical, dust content bodies? I think the whole point of this discussion forces the the flesh to be the same as it is in verse 39.

I understand JP's argument about "corruption" but I think similar usage in Acts also allows a physical fleshly body and not just moral corruption by our imperfect traits. Speaking of Jesus' it says, "Moreover, my flesh will reside in hope...you will not allow your loyal one to see corruption." (Acts 2:26,27) Surely Jesus isn't talking about his morals being tainted.

I'm not saying these views are absolutely correct but because of these I am leaning towards Zeus' arguments. I think JP's are strained in this area.

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 05:41 PM

Today @ 10:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121414#post121414)
johnransom:

P.S. Here (http://www.equip.org/free/DR165.htm)'s an interesting sidebar at CRI giving Geisler's take on Harris and a historical perspective on the whole debate.

That is not exactly the whole debate. Harris has clarified, he believes in a physical resurrection of Christ. However, Christ's resurrection and our resurrection are different things, and not necessarily of the same nature. Harris, like me, beleives the best interpretation is that Christ's rez was both physical and spiritual, whereas ours will be only spiritual.

AFAICT, Geisler is only arguing against a non-physical resurrection of Christ, which is not Harris' position.

Z

dizzle

June 12th 2003, 05:44 PM

What spirit is made of? Whatever it is "made of" it is immaterial without extension into space and that is not what Paul is teaching.

And you have stickler of a problem because Paul when he was before the Pharisees and Saduccees affirmed that he believed, just as they (the Pharisees do) in the resurrectoin of the just and unjust. We know what the Pharisees believed about the resurrection, and Paul would be highly deceitful if he parted ways so drasticially with their belief.

Second, after Jesus was resurrected others were as well, and yep, their physical bodies came up out of their physical graves. That would be a highly deceptive sign to give. And of course Christs', these saints, and others in the Bible set the paradigm for that the word "resurrection" means - what you are claiming Paul to be teaching would not by any stretch be a "resurrection" for the believers spirits are not dead, and only dead things get resurrected. The spiritual resurrection of the spirit happens at conversion not death and was a present reality for Paul, yet he was speakig of something futher.

And further Paul speaks of the physical creatoin in Romans 8 and compares that with our longing for the physical redemption of our bodies. And so on and so on.

dizzle

June 12th 2003, 05:46 PM

Today @ 05:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121426#post121426)
Zeus:

That is not exactly the whole debate. Harris has clarified, he believes in a physical resurrection of Christ. However, Christ's resurrection and our resurrection are different things, and not necessarily of the same nature. Harris, like me, beleives the best interpretation is that Christ's rez was both physical and spiritual, whereas ours will be only spiritual.

AFAICT, Geisler is only arguing against a non-physical resurrection of Christ, which is not Harris' position.

Z

Unfortunately Paul makes the argument in 1 Cor 15 that Christ's and our are the same and the proof of one is the proof of the other. To deny that guts his argument.

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 06:07 PM

Today @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121427#post121427)
Dee Dee Warren:

What spirit is made of? Whatever it is "made of" it is immaterial without extension into space and that is not what Paul is teaching.

And you have stickler of a problem because Paul when he was before the Pharisees and Saduccees affirmed that he believed, just as they (the Pharisees do) in the resurrectoin of the just and unjust. We know what the Pharisees believed about the resurrection, and Paul would be highly deceitful if he parted ways so drasticially with their belief.

I don't think that is so convincing - after all Paul could believe in an immaterial resurrection and still truthfully claim that he beleived in the resurrection of the dead (of course). He just didn't completely explain himself, or how he believed the Pharisees were a little confused (if my position is correct).

Second, after Jesus was resurrected others were as well, and yep, their physical bodies came up out of their physical graves. That would be a highly deceptive sign to give. And of course Christs', these saints, and others in the Bible set the paradigm for that the word "resurrection" means

But it cannot be that simple. Jesus, and also us at the resurrection, will be resurrected immortal. Those others, including Lazarus too, were resurrected mortal. There is a major difference here, and it is quite reasonable to assume that immortal and mortal resurrected bodies are of different composition, no? I'm not claiming to have all the answers here, but this is certainly a problem with your position.

- what you are claiming Paul to be teaching would not by any stretch be a "resurrection" for the believers spirits are not dead, and only dead things get resurrected. The spiritual resurrection of the spirit happens at conversion not death and was a present reality for Paul, yet he was speakig of something futher.

And further Paul speaks of the physical creatoin in Romans 8 and compares that with our longing for the physical redemption of our bodies. And so on and so on.

Where exactly do you get the idea that unbelievers have dead spirits? When did their spirits die? And where do you get the idea that we have a spiritual resurrection at the moment of conversion?

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 06:14 PM

Today @ 10:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121428#post121428)
Dee Dee Warren:

Unfortunately Paul makes the argument in 1 Cor 15 that Christ's and our are the same and the proof of one is the proof of the other. To deny that guts his argument.

ACtually that is not true - Paul does not claim they are exactly the same.

15:16
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised :

That is consistent with my view, that Christ's rez was both physical and spiritual, while ours is only spiritual.

Z

jpholding

June 12th 2003, 06:35 PM

How dee,

Of course those people had bodies, whether mentioned or not, and it states they were being "controlled spiritually" according to your definition.

Their behavior was oriented in that direction; whether "controlled" (as in "no choice") is there...

Thus their bodies were controlled spiritually, which is how you are defining the post-resurrection body.

Er, no. Not "controlled'" if you mean "they had no choice" but that of their own volition they chose a certain orientation of behavior. In terms of the body, this would also not mean "control" in that sense but that the nature of the body was such that it was supremely functional (in a way "flesh and blood" unchanged is not) for the same sort of spiritual tasks these people on earth were already doing.

I don't really see how you can get out of that.

What is there to get out of?

Are you simply saying that, though spirit and material are not equivalent, spirit is material, just a special sort of glorified material?

That is a Mormon view, but not my own. No, I am not saying the body is "made of spirit" and nor does my quote say that. It is made of glorified material not found on any Peridoic Table of the Elements at present.

My feeling is this is incorrect -- but I personally don't really know what spirit is made of,

Joseph Smith said it was a type of matter, finer and purer. :smile: as for feelings, that's not a very good epistemolgical ground, now, is it?

Regardless of your exact view on the nature of spirit, they are clearly very different (since Paul is always contrasting them), and we clearly are resurrected spiritually, and not physically (by Paul's definition). Correct?

As far as it goes. But the primary point is orientation in such cites, not composition.

In terms of some of the rest you have said:

* Harris' "ours is spiritual only" flounders on my point above, that Paul uses the rez of Jesus as a "proof" to answer the "no rez" people in Corinth.
* Your attempt to explain away Paul before the Sanhedrin is little more than a rationalization. You are not explaining the data, but explaining it away.
* With Lazarus you are offering the usual modern confusion of terms of a "resurrection" as ANY return from the dead in any form. Lazarus is never called "resurrected"; the word anastasis is not used of him.
* Finally, Paul's seed analogy in 1 Cor. 15 does suggest a fundamental oneness of identity between the former body and the raised one.

To Reason dee ataire:

I think this is a non-sequiter. A main point of Paul's argument is about 'what type of body will people have.' He then goes and talks about fleshly bodies made from dust and spiritual bodies.

It is no such thing for "flesh and blood" is clearly used metaphorically in several places. To plagiairze myself:

The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech...

Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:

...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

Incidentally, it is not "moral tendencies and practices of imperfect humans" that are at the forefront of the metaphor, but the weakness and frailness and imperfection of the physical body which make us open to moral imperfection as humans. And the word in Acts, diaphthora, only means physical corruption and decay and is not the same word (it is related and similar) used by Paul.

I think JP's are strained in this area.

If you read only in English and without contextual markers, that is how I would expect it to be seen. :smile:

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 07:07 PM

Let's put this back in the original context of what I was arguing, and what Socrates objected to:

Zeus:
Nowhere in that passage (Romans 5:13) does it say anything about genetic mutations or heredity, nor does it literally concern anything other than the death of man (not of animals or plants). As Paul later exlains, he is talking about not physical death anyway, but rather spiritual death.

Socrates:
No, he is talking about the same sort of death that Jesus conquered in His bodily resurrection -- physical death (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

Zeus:
You are clearly mistaken, and you should read on - according to Paul, Christ conquered spiritual death (since we are not resurrected physically)

And later, Socrates wrote:

But my point remains: Paul was comparing Adam's death with Christ's resurrection, which WAS physical. There is no trace of a "spiritual resurrection" here, therefore no trace of the idea that Adam's death was "spiritual" and not physical.

Remember I was not objecting to Christ's physical resurrection.

I think that my argument above still stands, given your criticims, though perhaps slightly modified -- and that Socrates is incorrect. We indeed are not resurrected physically, but rather spiritually, where here I'm using the terms as Paul does in Corinthians. If you claim that spiritual bodies are physical (some glorified material), then Christ did not conquer mere physical death; it is more correct to say that he conquered spiritual death, since that is how we are resurrected. By this veiw, perhaps Christ did conquer our "physical" death in some sense, but clearly not in the sense of "physical" that describes our current bodies (how we normally think of physical, being composed of something in the periodic table, as you put it).

Agree?

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 07:30 PM

Since this entire question is tied up with the Fall, I'd like to ask all involved: what sort of death was the result of sin?

I'm especially curious, since to me Genesis indicates not physical death, but another sort of death, spiritual death. Which is of course consistent with Paul's statements that we are resurrected with spiritual bodies, not natural bodies.

2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

3:2
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3:3
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die :

3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

the fact is, according to the Genesis narrative, neither Adam nor Eve died physically the day that they ate the forbidden fruit. So something has to give: God told them they would die that day if they ate it, whereas Satan told them they would not. If the curse was actually physical death, then God lied, and Satan told the truth.

This conundrum is avoided if we associate the gaining of knowledge of good and evil with spiritual death, and assume that the curse is symbolic of that fact.

Comments?

Zeus

June 12th 2003, 07:55 PM

JP wrote:
With Lazarus you are offering the usual modern confusion of terms of a "resurrection" as ANY return from the dead in any form. Lazarus is never called "resurrected"; the word anastasis is not used of him.

No, but there is no confusion. The word 'anistemi' is used for Laz. Both words are closely related, and anistemi is used with specific reference to Christ's resurrection frequently throughout the NT, such as matthew 20:19, mark 9:9, luke 9:19, luke 24:7, luke 24:26, and in association with those that are resurrected in the anastasis.

Socrates

June 13th 2003, 05:14 AM

Today @ 10:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121491#post121491)
Zeus:

Since this entire question is tied up with the Fall, I'd like to ask all involved: what sort of death was the result of sin?

I answered that in my post Adam's sin brought physical death (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=108677#post108677)

Also, what Jesus said in Luke 24:39 demolishes the "spiritual resurrection" view:

Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

And it was the resurrection of Jesus that is contrasted with Adam's death in 1 Cor. 15:21-22.

The "spiritual resurrection" view is certainly heterodox if not heretical. My debate opponent John Ransom seems to agree that Geisler is right and Harris is off the wall on this (post #9).

johnransom

June 13th 2003, 10:07 AM

Today @ 04:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121797#post121797)
Socrates:
The "spiritual resurrection" view is certainly heterodox if not heretical. My debate opponent John Ransom seems to agree that Geisler is right and Harris is off the wall on this (post #9).
Well, I linked to Geisler's column primarily because I knew he was a vocal critic of Harris' position. I don't see anything objectionable in his argument though. He stops short of the heterodoxy/heresy charge, however; I suppose that a misunderstanding of the form of the resurrection doesn't affect salvation. After all, Paul was writing to correct such a misunderstanding, but never suggests that this was soteriologically dangerous.

Personally, I really don't get Harris' discontinuity argument. Admittedly, the passage speaks of heavenly and earthly bodies as if they are entirely unrelated, but the analogy of the seed clearly implies continuity, as does also the "putting on" of imperishability/immortality discussed in vv. 53-54. In other words, the heavenly body and glory do not replacethe earthly, they are added to it.

BTW, talking of our debate, get on with it, man!:teeth:

dizzle

June 13th 2003, 10:15 AM

Yesterday @ 06:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121438#post121438)
Zeus:

I don't think that is so convincing - after all Paul could believe in an immaterial resurrection and still truthfully claim that he beleived in the resurrection of the dead (of course). He just didn't completely explain himself, or how he believed the Pharisees were a little confused (if my position is correct).

More on this because Paul unequivobaly allied himself with them. This is a bad problem for you (strapped for time at the moment)

But it cannot be that simple. Jesus, and also us at the resurrection, will be resurrected immortal. Those others, including Lazarus too, were resurrected mortal.

And where does the text say that those who wer raised with Christ were resurrected mortal? It does not say that at all, and I firmly believe that they were not.

There is a major difference here, and it is quite reasonable to assume that immortal and mortal resurrected bodies are of different composition, no? I'm not claiming to have all the answers here, but this is certainly a problem with your position.

More on this because what you are doing is explaining away texts in isolation but the cumulative case buries you.

Where exactly do you get the idea that unbelievers have dead spirits? When did their spirits die? And where do you get the idea that we have a spiritual resurrection at the moment of conversion?

If I can prove this to you (and I can) would you then agree there is a tremendous problem with your position?

dizzle

June 13th 2003, 10:33 AM

Today @ 10:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121934#post121934)
johnransom:

He stops short of the heterodoxy/heresy charge....

That is not my understanding of Geisler's position. I believe he fully states that this is a heterodox/heretical belief.

....however; I suppose that a misunderstanding of the form of the resurrection doesn't affect salvation. After all, Paul was writing to correct such a misunderstanding, but never suggests that this was soteriologically dangerous.

Actually I think Paul does exactly that which explains my burning passion for this subject. I think to phrase this as a dispute over the "form" of the resurrection is misleading. I beliee Paul's case is very simple, a diffrent "resurrection" is no resurrection at all, because he meant something specific by those words. It wuld be like taking the very liberal Jewish view that we "live on" after death merely in the memories of our loved ones as stating that they believe in a resurrection. They can call it a resurrection, but that don't make it one. And I think that is the thrust of Paul's point. If the "dead" do not rise then Christ is not risen. There is NO way around that one to one correspondence with Christ's resurrection and ours. Paul was stating in paraphrase that if it is unbelievable that our dead bodies will come up out of the grave, then Christ did not. He ties the two togther. Christ is the first fruits of a similar crop. If you plant a crop, the first fruits are not corn, and then the rest is pumpkins. It does not happen that way. The context is DEVASTATINGto this idea. By tying a denial of our physical resurrrection to the logical conclusion of a denial of Christ's by implication, Paul makes this a deadly serius issue. It is not one to trifle with but to approach with reverential fear.

Reasonable

June 13th 2003, 11:32 AM

[
To Reason dee ataire:

I think this is a non-sequiter. A main point of Paul's argument is about 'what type of body will people have.' He then goes and talks about fleshly bodies made from dust and spiritual bodies.

It is no such thing for "flesh and blood" is clearly used metaphorically in several places. To plagiairze myself:

The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech...

Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:

...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

Incidentally, it is not "moral tendencies and practices of imperfect humans" that are at the forefront of the metaphor, but the weakness and frailness and imperfection of the physical body which make us open to moral imperfection as humans. And the word in Acts, diaphthora, only means physical corruption and decay and is not the same word (it is related and similar) used by Paul.

Hi JP,
Thanks for clarifying your position. I don't agree with it because, as I stated already, to apply a different meaning to "flesh" as was used earlier in the same discussion is uncalled for, regardless of the fact that Wisdom, Sirach etc used the term in a different way. And I admit I have not looked these references up but I have high confidence that the physical body is also inherently included in the phrase. Irregardless, the immediate context and discussion gets first priority and Paul's discussion is on the types of bodies (not morals) and he discusses fleshly and spiritual bodies. After he states we will have spiritual bodies he then explains why: "Flesh and Blood cannot inheret the Kingdom."

It's not the human body that makes us "open to moral imperfection" as angels are also able to be immoral. Now I agree that, as humans, we are imperfect and that this could be included in the phrase "flesh and blood" but since Paul, in 1 Cor 15, is not talking about morals, it makes little sense to argue that he all of a sudden jumped to that subject when he was obviously arguing for the types of bodies. I agree with Gal. 1:16 and Eph 6:12 and that "flesh and blood" denotes humans in totality. Again, this presents no problem at all and neither phrase excludes the physicalness of the people. Also, I fail to see how Matt 16:17 and Heb 2:14 support your position. In all four verses cited, "flesh and blood" refers to physical bodies and if you want to throw in their bad traits and morals, physical weaknesses, limitations ets., that is fine. In fact, I agree that, after Adam, the immoral traits of humans went right along with "flesh and blood." Heb 2:14 implies Jesus became "flesh and blood" but obviously immorral traits were not included with him as he was perfect. Jesus had all the moral qualities to inheret the Kingdom but he still had to become a spirit. You can't separate the physical body from the phrase "flesh and blood" and so... a physical body cannot inherit the kingdom. We will be as the angels (Luke 20:36) and absent from this physical body (2 Cor 5:8).

That Jew's prior to Christ had a physical understanding of the resurrection is also not a big issue. Jesus did come to bring new understanding. In fact, he clarified some things for them in Luke 20:36 and Matt 22:29. I think the only plausable argument for Jesus being in the flesh is John's account about Jesus' temple being raised.

Thanks for clarifying the different but similar word for corruptable in Acts. My point was to merely show that Paul's saying "corruption" does not inherently mean 'imperfect traits and morals' as it is also used to describe the physical body.

I appreciate your insight into these matters and it's always nice to know both sides of the argument.

dizzle

June 13th 2003, 11:37 AM

Reasonable I will be posting more, and I believe I part ways with JP in some of his points, though we end up at the same destination. It is good you have the background of the conversation I pointed you to about the binding of satan for if my chronology is correct there, that ties in intimately to what is going on here.

John Reece

June 13th 2003, 11:45 AM

Jesus had all the moral qualities to inheret the Kingdom but he still had to become a spirit.

:huh:

johnransom

June 13th 2003, 11:52 AM

Today @ 09:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121952#post121952)
Dee Dee Warren:
That is not my understanding of Geisler's position. I believe he fully states that this is a heterodox/heretical belief.
Yeah, you're right. He says it in a negative way, though. I should read my own sources more carefully.

Actually I think Paul does exactly that which explains my burning passion for this subject. I think to phrase this as a dispute over the "form" of the resurrection is misleading. I beliee Paul's case is very simple, a diffrent "resurrection" is no resurrection at all, because he meant something specific by those words. It wuld be like taking the very liberal Jewish view that we "live on" after death merely in the memories of our loved ones as stating that they believe in a resurrection. They can call it a resurrection, but that don't make it one. And I think that is the thrust of Paul's point. If the "dead" do not rise then Christ is not risen. There is NO way around that one to one correspondence with Christ's resurrection and ours. Paul was stating in paraphrase that if it is unbelievable that our dead bodies will come up out of the grave, then Christ did not. He ties the two togther. Christ is the first fruits of a similar crop. If you plant a crop, the first fruits are not corn, and then the rest is pumpkins. It does not happen that way. The context is DEVASTATINGto this idea. By tying a denial of our physical resurrrection to the logical conclusion of a denial of Christ's by implication, Paul makes this a deadly serius issue. It is not one to trifle with but to approach with reverential fear.
The key to this rests in verse 35 and in the identity of the questioner ("someone"). I had always assumed that chapter 15 continues in the same vein as the rest of the letter, that is, to resolve objections and divisions within the Corinithian church. The tone of the passage does tend to suggest a response to contrary teachings being heard by the church, although of a less vitriolic style than is normally the case with Paul in such situations. Thus, the questioner would be a member of the congregation. If so, then my thinking seems to follow, since from the very first Paul has addressed them as saints (v 1:2); they have not lost their salvation, merely abused it.

On the other hand, the questioner may be an outsider (Matthew Henry thinks two - one for each question: a denier for the first and a curious doubter for the second). In that case, Paul would be arming the Corinthians with a defense against such an objection. This too has some continuity with the rest of the letter, which is concerned in part with presenting a cohesive and moral face to the world at large. If this is so, then I think your argument carries the day.

This bears further thought.

dizzle

June 13th 2003, 12:05 PM

I will expound further JohnRansom, this subject is a passion of mine.

jpholding

June 13th 2003, 12:11 PM

To the head of the pantheon:

I think that my argument above still stands, given your criticims,

Yet you have answered only the smallest part of them?

If you claim that spiritual bodies are physical (some glorified material), then Christ did not conquer mere physical death; it is more correct to say that he conquered spiritual death

Would not physical death have been regarded as a symptom of spiritual death? And would not that mean conquering both in the long run if the latter is conquered?

No, but there is no confusion. The word 'anistemi' is used for Laz.

But not anastasis, the noun form, which is used only of resurrection. The verb form is used even of people getting up from a seat.

To Reason dee atare:

Thanks for clarifying your position. I don't agree with it because, as I stated already, to apply a different meaning to "flesh" as was used earlier in the same discussion is uncalled for, regardless of the fact that Wisdom, Sirach etc used the term in a different way.

Good grief. Regardless of data and parallel usage, it is unwarranted? Do you realize you are not answering the point at all, but merely denying its force and begging for an exception to preserve your view?

And I admit I have not looked these references up but I have high confidence that the physical body is also inherently included in the phrase.

"High confidence" is also about all many atheists I have dealt with have. :smile: If you don't have countering data, you continue not because of evidence but in spite of it.

Irregardless, the immediate context and discussion gets first priority

Good grief again! He sounds like skepticbud! Did he reconvert? I had this out before with an atheist -- no, my friend, immediate context does NOT get priority -- all contexts must be considered together, syntheisized, and analyzed. Otherwise one does as you have done -- lets the idea desired get priority.

but since Paul, in 1 Cor 15, is not talking about morals, it makes little sense to argue that he all of a sudden jumped to that subject when he was obviously arguing for the types of bodies.

You are still not grasping my position here. This is not a jump in subject because (as noted above) spiritual and physical death are interlinked.

In all four verses cited, "flesh and blood" refers to physical bodies and if you want to throw in their bad traits and morals, physical weaknesses, limitations ets., that is fine

In all four verses, however, frailty and weakness are the forerunning idea. If "bodies" was the forerunning idea, "flesh and bone" -- indicating solidity as at Jesus' resurrection -- would have been used. Note that the rez body is not MERELY "flesh and blood" phsyically, but glorified so that the "weakness" which is the point of the idiom is overruled.

Heb 2:14 implies Jesus became "flesh and blood" but obviously immorral traits were not included with him as he was perfect.

That of course is only because his identity precluded it. Ours does not. Heb, 2:14 is in the context of explaining Christ's weakness and vulnerability as a human, which is again what I have said of 1 Cor. 15.

We will be as the angels (Luke 20:36) and absent from this physical body (2 Cor 5:8).

2 Cor. 5:8 speaks of a state immediately after death -- and prior to the final resurrection. Luke 20:36 speaks exclusively of marriage and as nothing to do with composition. Your use of these is highly eisegetical.

That Jew's prior to Christ had a physical understanding of the resurrection is also not a big issue. Jesus did come to bring new understanding.

That you say this shows how little you realize the continuity of thought between Jesus and mainstream, OT Judaism.

In fact, he clarified some things for them in Luke 20:36 and Matt 22:29.

Luke 20:36 //Matt. 22:29 is a reply to the Sadducees alone -- a minority group affected my Hellenistic thought. It is not a clarification or "new understanding" but only a correction of a misperception held by a few.

Reasonable

June 13th 2003, 01:03 PM

JP, I don't mind discussing things with you and I appreciate your defending your faith but I ask that you do it in the manner of 1 Peter 3:15. Making comments parralleling me to Skepticbud is uncalled for.

To Reason dee atare:

Thanks for clarifying your position. I don't agree with it because, as I stated already, to apply a different meaning to "flesh" as was used earlier in the same discussion is uncalled for, regardless of the fact that Wisdom, Sirach etc used the term in a different way.

Good grief. Regardless of data and parallel usage, it is unwarranted? Do you realize you are not answering the point at all, but merely denying its force and begging for an exception to preserve your view?

The "data" does not exclude the physical body. Additionally, the data also includes the context in which it sits. I'm simply keeping up with the discussion of Paul. 'What type of body and why that type of body.'

And I admit I have not looked these references up but I have high confidence that the physical body is also inherently included in the phrase.

"High confidence" is also about all many atheists I have dealt with have. :smile: If you don't have countering data, you continue not because of evidence but in spite of it.

If Sirach and Wisdom are parrallel to the NT references then I'm correct. Or do these references explicitly exclude the physical body?

Irregardless, the immediate context and discussion gets first priority

Good grief again! He sounds like skepticbud! Did he reconvert? I had this out before with an atheist -- no, my friend, immediate context does NOT get priority -- all contexts must be considered together, syntheisized, and analyzed. Otherwise one does as you have done -- lets the idea desired get priority.

I think you're incorrect. People use the context around a controversial verse to explain its meaning all the time. I agree it is beneficial to know parrallel expressions, etc., especially when the context is in dispute. But the context of what is being discussed has to be considered first.

If I say it's "raining cats and dogs," you could go to a hundred modern references to show I meant it was raining really hard. But what if the context of my saying that phrase included references to scratch marks all over my car, dog fur all over my bike, meowing and barking followed by large thumps on the ground all night and a news report that a cargo jet for PetSmart opened its hatch and 500 cats and dogs fell out? No matter how many references you show that "raining cats and dogs" means I was saying it was raining water, they will not override I meant cats and dogs were falling out of the sky.

Now if that scenario happened but I didn't give you all the details, you would then have a valid argument, though you would still be wrong. It wouldn't necessarily be your fault for the misunderstanding because I didn't give you all the details. In 1 Cor. 15 though, Paul does give us the details about what he is talking about. That's how we know what he was referencing. He wasn't even talking about the kind of morals and behavior that would not inheret the Kingdom, he was talking about the kind of body.

In all four verses cited, "flesh and blood" refers to physical bodies and if you want to throw in their bad traits and morals, physical weaknesses, limitations ets., that is fine

In all four verses, however, frailty and weakness are the forerunning idea. If "bodies" was the forerunning idea, "flesh and bone" -- indicating solidity as at Jesus' resurrection -- would have been used. Note that the rez body is not MERELY "flesh and blood" phsyically, but glorified so that the "weakness" which is the point of the idiom is overruled.

Frailty and weakness are inherent qualities of the physical body. These verses still reference the physical body.

We will be as the angels (Luke 20:36) and absent from this physical body (2 Cor 5:8).

2 Cor. 5:8 speaks of a state immediately after death -- and prior to the final resurrection. Luke 20:36 speaks exclusively of marriage and as nothing to do with composition. Your use of these is highly eisegetical.

Paul already tells us the state after death and before the resurrection at 1 Thess 4:13-17. He didn't tell them to not mourn because their dead loved ones are already in heaven with Jesus, he told them to not mourn because someday they will be in heaven. As far as Luke, i know it was referring to marriage but it has other implications. Angels, to our knowledge, do not have sexual relations and pro-create, they're spirits. I think Jesus is saying we will not have sexual relations or pro-create because we will also be spirits like the angels.

That Jew's prior to Christ had a physical understanding of the resurrection is also not a big issue. Jesus did come to bring new understanding.

That you say this shows how little you realize the continuity of thought between Jesus and mainstream, OT Judaism.

What we see is Jesus adjusting and correcting thoughts all through the NT.

In fact, he clarified some things for them in Luke 20:36 and Matt 22:29.

Luke 20:36 //Matt. 22:29 is a reply to the Sadducees alone -- a minority group affected my Hellenistic thought. It is not a clarification or "new understanding" but only a correction of a misperception held by a few.

Their misunderstanding was whether there was a resurrection at all. Jesus addressed that and the part that Jesus "clarified" was that they would not be married after the resurrection. That was the clarification. If the Jews in general already believed such (that they wouldn't be married after res.) then surely the Sadducees would have known that and already posed such a question to the Pharissees and gotten the same answer and thus not proposed it agian to Jesus. My guess is they stumped the Pharisees on that question and Jesus blew right through it.

Zeus

June 13th 2003, 03:19 PM

Today @ 03:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121942#post121942)
Dee Dee Warren:

If I can prove this to you (and I can) would you then agree there is a tremendous problem with your position?

go for it - I'm not making promises but I'm certainly open to changing my views. Why wouldn't I?. My purpose here is not to "win", but to discuss and learn, and hopefully teach too.

Zeus

June 13th 2003, 03:53 PM

Zeus:
If you claim that spiritual bodies are physical (some glorified material), then Christ did not conquer mere physical death; it is more correct to say that he conquered spiritual death

JP:
Would not physical death have been regarded as a symptom of spiritual death?

No. We all die physically, but this is not necessarily part of spiritual death. (Mt.10.28)

JP:
And would not that mean conquering both in the long run if the latter is conquered?

Yes. I do agree with that. That's why I said "Christ did not conquer mere physical death; it is more correct to say that he conquered spiritual death".

Zeus:
I think that my argument above still stands, given your criticims,

JP:
Yet you have answered only the smallest part of them?

JP, I'm holding back answering your criticisms because it is unclear to me presently that we actually disagree, once our positions are clarified. That is why I'm trying to get clarification of your understanding of the rez before I argue against it -- I don't want to argue against something I agree with. You'd help me out if you would first answer the question I posed, paraphrased below.

We indeed are not resurrected physically, but rather spiritually, where here I'm using the terms as Paul does in Corinthians. If you claim that spiritual bodies are physical (some glorified material), perhaps Christ did conquer our "physical" death in some sense, but clearly not in the sense of "physical" that describes our current bodies (how we normally think of physical, being composed of something in the periodic table, as you put it).

Agree?

jpholding

June 13th 2003, 04:42 PM

Reasonable:[/i]

JP, I don't mind discussing things with you and I appreciate your defending your faith but I ask that you do it in the manner of 1 Peter 3:15. Making comments parralleling me to Skepticbud is uncalled for.

Even if you make the same mistakes??? And there's another -- a misuse of 1 Peter 3:15. That had nothing to do with ideological exchange but with pagans accusing Christians of seeking their own good when they helped others (the concept of charity being as yet uninvented!).

The "data" does not exclude the physical body. Additionally, the data also includes the context in which it sits.

It "sits" in a much larger context, however, that you are merely waving off.

If Sirach and Wisdom are parrallel to the NT references then I'm correct. Or do these references explicitly exclude the physical body?

If "flesh and blood" means "human weakness" in any case, as it does, then your view is NOT correct but misplaced.

People use the context around a controversial verse to explain its meaning all the time.

The habits of "people" are based in great part on their lack of knowledge of the larger contexts available for interpretation. Come now -- how many people do you know who know that, i.e., the NT world was an honor and shame society? That is the one and only reason "people" think "immediate context" is most important -- it's all they've worked with, and all they are comfortable with.

But what if the context of my saying that phrase included references to scratch marks all over my car, dog fur all over my

Then you are obviously using the phrase ironically. The larger context of the metaphorical usage tells us that.

In 1 Cor. 15 though, Paul does give us the details about what he is talking about.

Yes, he clearly talks about a physical resurrection body. :smile:

Frailty and weakness are inherent qualities of the physical body. These verses still reference the physical body.

They are inherent qualities of the PRESENT physical body. The resurrected one, not so.

Paul already tells us the state after death and before the resurrection at 1 Thess 4:13-17.

Yes, and I have no problem with that. All before the final rez.

As far as Luke, i know it was referring to marriage but it has other implications.

Only if you read them into the text.

Angels, to our knowledge, do not have sexual relations and pro-create, they're spirits.

You are aware what the Jews of the day thought the "sons of God" were in Genesis 6?

I think Jesus is saying we will not have sexual relations or pro-create because we will also be spirits like the angels.

Which even then does not say we will have the same kind of composition.

Their misunderstanding was whether there was a resurrection at all. Jesus addressed that and the part that Jesus "clarified" was that they would not be married after the resurrection. That was the clarification.

Yes, but again, to only a small and divergent group out of the Jewish mainstream on that point.

If the Jews in general already believed such (that they wouldn't be married after res.) then surely the Sadducees would have known that and already posed such a question to the Pharissees

Odds are they did. The rabbis do record similar discussions.

and gotten the same answer and thus not proposed it agian to Jesus.

Not true. To test a teacher with common stumpers would have been par for the course to determine where he stood on various issues. Their hope was that they could shame him by stumping him.

Zeus, I will return for you later; I need to go out now.

DBoone

June 13th 2003, 05:38 PM

Doesn't the Bible say that the nature of the resurrection is that we are sown a physical body but raised a spiritual body, that we will all be changed, and that mortality will take on immortality. Even Jesus said that He was flesh and bone after the rez, so that has to be taken into account in the description of our resurrection bodies, since we are heirs of salvation. This is pure conjecture, and I heard it from someone else, but I think the idea has value. Jesus didn't say flesh and blood He said flesh and bone since physical life is in the blood and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and the rez body is raised a spiritual body then what was the blood replaced with? Jesus was raised by the glory of God, so the glory replaced the blood as a life-giving element, and so the body was raised as a spiritual body. Jesus still was able to eat after the rez, but he was also able to walk thru walls and fly off on a cloud of glory. It's just conjecture, but it's the best idea I've heard on the subject lately.

jpholding

June 13th 2003, 07:10 PM

To the head of the pantheon:

No. We all die physically, but this is not necessarily part of spiritual death. (Mt.10.28)

How so and how does Matt 10:28 prove this? Do you not take physical death to be a symptom of a creation in need of redemption?

Yes. I do agree with that. That's why I said "Christ did not conquer mere physical death; it is more correct to say that he conquered spiritual death".

So then he conquered both -- O grave, where is thy victory...?

If you claim that spiritual bodies are physical (some glorified material), perhaps Christ did conquer our "physical" death in some sense, but clearly not in the sense of "physical" that describes our current bodies (how we normally think of physical, being composed of something in the periodic table, as you put it).

Agree?

Perhaps so; and if so then the only issue left is continuity. If you say that the body we now have is 1, and the rez body is 1+1 -- i.e., if it retains some semblance of identity with the previous body -- then our difference is one of semantics only. If not, then we have the difference of Geisler and Harris and another series of questions. In any event, if you say that "spiritual body" does not mean "a body made of spirit, the same as our present spirit" then we are through disagreeing.

Back sometime this weekend. I suspect this thread will be off the charts by then.

Zeus

June 13th 2003, 08:25 PM

Today @ 12:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122496#post122496)
jpholding:

To the head of the pantheon:

No. We all die physically, but this is not necessarily part of spiritual death. (Mt.10.28)

How so and how does Matt 10:28 prove this?

Well, don't you agree that before Christ we were bound by the Law, and that obedience to the Law could save us? And that disobedience meant spiritual death? Anyway, Jesus says in Matt 10:28: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul". In other words, physical death is not necessarily spiritual death. I realize that Jesus uses ψυχη here and not πνευμα, but I think its clear they meant the same thing in this passage.

Do you not take physical death to be a symptom of a creation in need of redemption?

Nevermind - I had misunderstood your point. Yes, physical death is a symptom of a creation in need of redemption, at least for humans.

Yes. I do agree with that. That's why I said "Christ did not conquer mere physical death; it is more correct to say that he conquered spiritual death".

So then he conquered both -- O grave, where is thy victory...?

Assuredly. I still see spiritual immortality as of primary importance, for several reasons, including such things as Matt 10:28 and 1Cor 15, and Paul's consistent insistence of the primacy of πνευμα over ψυχη.

If you claim that spiritual bodies are physical (some glorified material), perhaps Christ did conquer our "physical" death in some sense, but clearly not in the sense of "physical" that describes our current bodies (how we normally think of physical, being composed of something in the periodic table, as you put it).

Agree?

Perhaps so; and if so then the only issue left is continuity.

Great! Continuity is not an issue - there obviously is some sort, although I'm sure you'll agree the exact nature of the continuity is a mystery.

I suppose that my background in chemistry/biochemistry has influenced my views here -- when I say "physical" or "material" I pretty much mean that in terms of how we currently understand mass and energy (fundamental particles, periodic table, molecules, atoms, etc.). Which, as you've pointed out before, does not translate between NT Koine and English so well sometimes.

If you say that the body we now have is 1, and the rez body is 1+1 -- i.e., if it retains some semblance of identity with the previous body -- then our difference is one of semantics only. If not, then we have the difference of Geisler and Harris and another series of questions.

I honestly don't know. Clearly Jesus' rez body had a resemblance to the pre-rez body. It's unclear to me that is necessarily the case with us, but I won't argue either way. So I beleive we're down to semantics only, which is what I thought may be the case.

In any event, if you say that "spiritual body" does not mean "a body made of spirit, the same as our present spirit" then we are through disagreeing.

I agree with that. Does that really mean we're through??

I guess earlier I was assuming that the spiritual body was made of spirit, or rather the same "stuff" that composes spirit, but I realized midway that is unnecessary for my understanding of the resurrection as long as the pre-rez and post-rez material are different, and as long as the material of the spiritual body is exclusively associated with spirit somehow.

I could perhaps make an argument that my semantics are better, based upon the Pauline usage of and allusion to the Gentile Greek concept of a triune personhood of body, soul, and spirit (σομα, ψυχη and πνευμα) -- but that's pretty minor and subtle, really.

Cheers,

Z

Zeus

June 13th 2003, 09:37 PM

JP (and whoever else is interested):

A question -- You obviously believe that "flesh and blood" in 1 Cor 15:50 is poetic (or primarily poetic), but do you truly think that flesh and blood (FaB) literally does inherit the kingdom of God, even though Paul emphatically states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"?

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Personally, I agree now that FaB is probably used there metaphorically, but I really cannot believe that Paul would state that so emphatically if it were not literally true also. Otherwise, it seems very misleading, especially given the cultural background of his audience, even with the immediate gloss.

Also, following your lead of subtle textual dissection, the word "neither" is used there (ουδε). If Paul really meant that FaB was exactly equivalent to "perishable/corruptable/impure", he wouldn't have used the negative conjunction, would he? Surely that implies a difference.

For example, a few verses earlier we have:

15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

15:40_
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

15:41_
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

In each case, when Paul means a contrast or a difference, there is a negative conjuction. But when he is glossing, and emphasizing parallels, he uses the positive conjunction.

IOW, I see it as most likely a clever pun of sorts, where both meanings hold, and if you didn't get the double entendre, but only caught the literal meaning, he makes sure and spells out the metaphorical meaning again in language a Greek would understand.

This interpretation is consistent, I believe, with your view as long as we realize that perhaps the 'soma pneumatikon' has a spiritual flesh and spiritual blood, but not 'psuchikos' blood and flesh as our current 'soma psuchikon' has.

Z

George Blaisdell

June 13th 2003, 10:34 PM

Zeus writes:

> Since this entire question is tied up with the Fall, I'd like to ask all involved: what sort of death was the result of sin?

> I'm especially curious, since to me Genesis indicates not physical death, but another sort of death, spiritual death. Which is of course consistent with Paul's statements that we are resurrected with spiritual bodies, not natural bodies.

> the fact is, according to the Genesis narrative, neither Adam nor Eve died physically the day that they ate the forbidden fruit. So something has to give: God told them they would die that day if they ate it, whereas Satan told them they would not. If the curse was actually physical death, then God lied, and Satan told the truth.

> This conundrum is avoided if we associate the gaining of knowledge of good and evil with spiritual death, and assume that the curse is symbolic of that fact.

> Comments?

There is a teaching from the fathers, which we call a theologumenon, that sees the death of Adam and Eve in this passage:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

And they were afraid and ashamed in their nakedness. These days, we like to think they were ashamed due to their visible genitalia, yet this was not the case, according to this teaching, but instead their nakedness was the loss of their garments of Light, the radiance of God's Light, in which they had been clothed... In a word, by turning from God, by believing the serpent, they lost relationship with the source and sustainer of their being, and they were thereby dead, and in that death, which is described as nakedness, and was indeed the loss of their previous life, God gave them a way back to life, in the fulness of time...

geo

Zeus

June 13th 2003, 11:08 PM

Today @ 03:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122607#post122607)
George Blaisdell:

There is a teaching from the fathers, which we call a theologumenon, that sees the death of Adam and Eve in this passage:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

And they were afraid and ashamed in their nakedness. These days, we like to think they were ashamed due to their visible genitalia, yet this was not the case, according to this teaching, but instead their nakedness was the loss of their garments of Light, the radiance of God's Light, in which they had been clothed... In a word, by turning from God, by believing the serpent, they lost relationship with the source and sustainer of their being, and they were thereby dead, and in that death, which is described as nakedness, and was indeed the loss of their previous life, God gave them a way back to life, in the fulness of time...

geo

Very nice. That's Eastern Orthodox? Sounds very close to how I've read it ...

z

Zeus

June 13th 2003, 11:23 PM

Yesterday @ 10:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121797#post121797)
Socrates:
Also, what Jesus said in Luke 24:39 demolishes the "spiritual resurrection" view:

Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

So you mean that Christ did not have a spirit after his resurection? If not, then what he must have meant was a naked spirit does not have flesh and bones. I am in fact a spirit now, just not an unembodied one.

The "spiritual resurrection" view is certainly heterodox if not heretical.

That depends what you mean exactly by "spiritual resurrection." Paul clearly states we will have spiritual bodies when we are resurrected, so saying it is a spiritual resurrection is quite appropriate, yes? JP and I seem to have come to the mutual conclusion that the resurrection is bodily and material, yet, as Paul emphatically states, it is not a natural, 'psuchikos' resurrection, but rather a spiritual, 'pneumatikos' resurrection. The spiritual resurrected body is not the same material as the earthly body we have now.

This is why calling it a "physical resurrection" seems misleading to me, since we, in the 21st century, normally think of the material our earthly body is made of as being physical -- whereas we do not intuitively consider a glorified, incorruptible, immortal, unearthly, spiritual body as "physical."

In fact, calling the rez "physical" I think is contrary to the original Pauline semantics. Our word "physical" derives from the greek φυσικο&sigmaf;, meaning "natural", or "animal", and are even related to breath, indicating its etymological relationship with ψυχικο&sigmaf;. Both have similar meanings. IOW, if we want to be as true to Paul's terminology as we can in English translation (acknowledging English's debt to Greek), we probably shouldn't translate or equivocate 'pneumatikos' as 'physical', since Paul was contrasting 'pneumatikos' with 'psuchikos'. Perhaps "material" would be better overall. Whaddya think, JP? Any Greek scholars want to chime in?

z

Justme

June 13th 2003, 11:35 PM

Hi,

I think a simple answer here is just to ask someone who has had a near death experience. They say that they see everyone as they were INCLUDING themselves, laying on the hospital bed, but they could never describe what their 'body' looked like.

In one of John's letters, he tells us that what our future body looks like has not been made known. Well, we know what the natural body looks like.

The bible tells us we will be like angels in Heaven, angels don't sound very physical to me.

I think the final argument is that if you dig up the grave of Mother Teresa you will find her natural body still there. The body returns to dust and the spirit to God who gave it.

Because the natural body is in the grave and the 'spiritual' is in Heaven where God is, that pretty well covers it, unless someone can show verses of a situation where the bible indicates a natural body, a spiritual body then a third situation of the two reuniting. Natural, -spiritual-special dual thing.

What verses indicate this uniting with the natural body and coming up out of the grave?

(I don't mean special instances like Lazurus, I mean ordinary folk like Columbus and Mother Teresa.)

Lazurus was a NDE, happens all the time....

Justme

Robyn Banks

June 14th 2003, 08:20 AM

Zeus:
JP (and whoever else is interested):

A question -- You obviously believe that "flesh and blood" in 1 Cor 15:50 is poetic (or primarily poetic),
In Paul, flesh/sarx is not primarily poetic. It primarily refers to the human body. However, it does usually connote that the body/soma is a perishable, weak thing. Flesh/sarx emphasises the mortality of the human - the decaying of our flesh and bones evident especially when the dead are viewed.

This mortality is something that is only present in the human body/soma. The resurrection body/soma, by contrast, does not have mortality, and does not have (in Pauline terms) flesh and blood or sarx.

Whether made of flesh/sarx, or spirit/pneuma, humans will always be 'embodied in a particular place' (soma). Before the resurrection, humans are embodied in a mortal, decaying, weak, frail, susceptible-to-sin (sarx) body (soma). After the resurrection, humans will be embodied in a spiritual (pneumatic) body (soma).

Zeus:
but do you truly think that flesh and blood (FaB) literally does inherit the kingdom of God, even though Paul emphatically states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"?
The human body which inherits the Kingdom of God is pneumatic/spiritual, not fleshly/sarx. For Paul, human beings will always be embodied beings, by definition. But the resurrection will involve the final leaving behind of the flesh with all its inherent weakness and corruptibility.

Zeus:
Personally, I agree now that FaB is probably used there metaphorically, but I really cannot believe that Paul would state that so emphatically if it were not literally true also.
James DG Dunn sets out the semantic range of sarx/flesh in Paul, pp64-65:
- 1. Natural usage: physical body, without any negative connotation (Rom 11.14, 1 Cor 6.16, 15.39, Eph 5.29, 31, Col 2.1)
- 2. Weakness: perishable, mortal (Rom 6:19; 1 Cor 15:50; 2 Cor 4:11; 7:5; Gal 4:13-14)
- 3. Weakness in contrast to a superior realm (Gal 1:16; 2:20; Phm 16; Phil 1:22-23)
- 4. Moral connotation: not justified (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16); weakens and incapacitates the law (Rom 8:3, 8)
- 5. Moral - the sphere of sin’s operations (Rom 7:5, 18, 25, 8:3)
- 6. Defective, disqualifying and destructive – especially in contrast with pneuma
- eg: circumcision should be of the spirit, not flesh (Rom 2:28)
- death v life (Rom 8:6)
- worse desires (Gal 3:3; 5:16-17, 19-23)
- 7. A source of corruption and hostility to God (Rom 8:7; 13:14; Gal 5:24, 6:8)

Frailty and morality are the connotations of what is a term to describe a (mortal) human. The literal referent is primary.

Zeus:
Otherwise, it seems very misleading, especially given the cultural background of his audience, even with the immediate gloss.
That's right. And there is a great danger in subsuming the meaning of a word from a particular passage/context in the generalized/abstracted meaning from all its occurences. Both the diachronic and the synchronic meanings are important.

Dunn cites Jewett, Anthropological Terms 4-6 who
"rightly warns against the danger of abstracting usage from context and against a purely lexical study."

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

jpholding

June 14th 2003, 08:50 AM

To the head of the pantheon:

Well, don't you agree that before Christ we were bound by the Law, and that obedience to the Law could save us?

Only theoretically. As Paul noted in Romans, no one actually could do it.

And that disobedience meant spiritual death? Anyway, Jesus says in Matt 10:28: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul". In other words, physical death is not necessarily spiritual death.

Obviously they are not the same thing. But how does this prove anything germane to the issue here? If, as I say, physical death is symptomatic of the general condition of spiritual death, then how is this addressed by Matt 10:28?

Nevermind - I had misunderstood your point. Yes, physical death is a symptom of a creation in need of redemption, at least for humans.

OK. :huh:

Assuredly. I still see spiritual immortality as of primary importance, for several reasons,

One's enough for me -- a body without a spirit is dead (James! -- and common sense) but a spirit can live and relate without a body.

Continuity is not an issue - there obviously is some sort, although I'm sure you'll agree the exact nature of the continuity is a mystery.

I'd put it more like, "It's nothing to worry about." There are many interesting discussion by Jewish rabbis about how God would restore the same body. One scholar suggested that the origin of ex nihilo was grounded in answering this question, though he's considered questionable on this. But that they saved the bones indicated a continuity was envisioned -- and if the ossuary of James is any clue, the early Christians believed the same.

I agree with that. Does that really mean we're through??

Looks like that may be the case. Spoilsport! :tongue:

understanding of the resurrection as long as the pre-rez and post-rez material are different, and as long as the material of the spiritual body is exclusively associated with spirit somehow.

Yep. So to answer your next, the rez body is not MERELY flesh and blood -- you may recognize it as similar in atomic composition, but would that obtain for Paul in his age? Probably not. Or it may be made of some new element.

I could perhaps make an argument that my semantics are better, based upon the Pauline usage of and allusion to the Gentile Greek concept of a triune personhood of body, soul, and spirit

I'm not sure that would apply. In Hebrew the "soul" seems to be the combo of body and spirit -- not triune, but dual. But it may be minor in this context.

And yes, I mean by "physical" what you mean by "material".

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 12:17 PM

Today @ 01:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122773#post122773)
jpholding:
I could perhaps make an argument that my semantics are better, based upon the Pauline usage of and allusion to the Gentile Greek concept of a triune personhood of body, soul, and spirit

I'm not sure that would apply. In Hebrew the "soul" seems to be the combo of body and spirit -- not triune, but dual. But it may be minor in this context.

I didn't mean to imply that Paul bought the triune concept, just that he knew it and used the language in a Christian context.

And yes, I mean by "physical" what you mean by "material".

Yes.

Cheers,

z

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 02:45 PM

Zeus:
Since this entire question is tied up with the Fall, I'd like to ask all involved: what sort of death was the result of sin?

Socrates:
I answered that in my post 'Adam's sin brought physical death'

Here is Soc's answer, quoted from here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=108677#post108677):

The literal translation of Genesis 2:17 is 'dying you shall die'. This is best explained by taking the promise of death in an ingressive sense. That is, a verbal form that designates the beginning of an action, state or event. In other words, the focus is on the beginning of the action of dying, which results in the translation '... for when you eat of it you will surely begin to die.'

I was aware of the "dying you will die" form of the statement here, but I'd really like to hear some resident Hebrew and Greek scholars comment on this. Socrates' translation is intriguing, yet I am skeptical -- out of the 20 or so translations, both new and old, that I have referenced, none of them translate Genesis 2:17 as "when you eat it you will begin to die" or " when you eat it you will begin to die a death" or anything similar. I understand that it can also be translated simply as "when you eat it, a death you will die."

Soc's translation I also find particularly suspect because of the parallel construction in Gen 3:16 --

Masoretic Hebrew:
To the woman He said, `Increasing I increase your sorrow and your pregnancy'

The Septuagint is similar except it subs "groans" for "pregnancy". According to Soc's view, we should interpret that as "I am beginning to increase your sorrow and pregnancy", which seems odd. I had always just taken the construction as a repetitive, emphatic form, which is why so many translators put the "surely" in there when it is not literally there.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 06:14 PM

This is reposted here from another thread to make discussion less confusing:

Today @ 07:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122924#post122924)
Dee Dee Warren:

And Zeus said:

I have orthodox beliefs as stated in Nicene and Apostolic creeds ...

No you do not. You deny the physical resurrection which places you outside those creeds. ... Redefining the creeds may give one personal comfort, but it is illegitimate.

Those are pretty harsh accusations, Dee Dee, and they are without basis:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
____the Creator of heaven and earth,
____and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
____born of the Virgin Mary,
____suffered under Pontius Pilate,
____was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [see Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
____and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
____whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
____the communion of saints,
____the forgiveness of sins,
____the resurrection of the body,
____and life everlasting.
Amen.

I affirm both of those. The Nicene Creed simply says "resurrection of the dead" -- it has nothing in it about it being "bodily" or "physical" or even "material".

The Apostle's Creed says "resurrection of the body." As should be clear from my discussion with JP, I firmly believe that. And my view of the body is striclty Pauline. The resurrection body is a spiritual body, where the exact Greek term is 'soma pneumatikon'. Paul tells us that the resurrection body will not be a "natural body", where the exact Greek term is 'soma psuchikon'. Psuche and psuchikon refer to the fleshly, natural, physical body that we presently have. It will be changed into something different, immortal, unperishable, incorruptible, and spiritual. That is the teaching of Paul.

As I explained, when I use the term "physical", I use it as a scientist would, in the sense of composed of the type of matter and energy as currently understood in physics, chemistry, and biology. You may disagree that this definition is the proper one, but that is strictly a semantic argument. As explained in two posts in the rez thread, here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122640#post122640) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122558#post122558), there are good reasons to avoid using the English word "physical" to describe the resurrection body if you want to be as true as possible to the Pauline terminology. The resurrection is not physical in the modern English sense of the term. I propose using "material" to avoid being misleading.

Now, Dee Dee, I would like to hear, based upon this clarification (definitions and semantics were muddying the waters earlier), what exactly is heterodox about my views of the resurrection?

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 06:20 PM

These are not easy things to say. I have some dear friends who believe or are considering believing as you do. I had considered keeping my mouth shut so as not to insult or offend them, but was conscience stricken that I was no friend if I did any such thing.

Those are pretty harsh accusations, Dee Dee, and they are without basis:

They are historic accusations and completely with basis which I will demonstrate on the other thread as they are a distraction here. I do not get to post substantively as much as I like since the administration of this board takes up most of my time.

I affirm both of those. The Nicene Creed simply says "resurrection of the dead" -- it has nothing in it about it being "bodily" or "physical" or even "material".

I am sorry but that is a completely shameless word game. The authors meant something by those words, words do not appear in a vacuum. I might as well call the liberal Jewish belief that we are resurrected by living on in the memories of our loved ones as in conformity to these creeds if we are going to act like words are magical and we can pour any meaning into them that we please. You are completely wrenching out of history and authorial intent, a practiced which is completley illegitimate. You are in contravention and contradiction to both creeds which is the only standard by which I ever claim anyone to be heterodox which is a narrow standard. I do not drop the charge of heresy lightly, you will rarely hear it from my lips, but the resurrection is a grave matter (pun intended).

The Apostle's Creed says "resurrection of the body." As should be clear from my discussion with JP, I firmly believe that. And my view of the body is striclty Pauline. The resurrection body is a spiritual body, where the exact Greek term is 'soma pneumatikon'. Paul tells us that the resurrection body will not be a "natural body", where the exact Greek term is 'soma psuchikon'. Psuche and psuchikon refer to the fleshly, natural, physical body that we presently have. It will be changed into something different, immortal, unperishable, incorruptible, and spiritual. That is the teaching of Paul.

The teaching of Paul is that our resurrectoin is like Christ's which you deny, which Paul then states is tantamount to denying Christ's resurrection. I did not say it, Paul did.

Now, Dee Dee, I would like to hear, based upon this clarification (definitions and semantics were muddying the waters earlier), what exactly is heterodox about my views of the resurrection?

I will get into more detail as God grants me the time. The short answer is that you deny that our resurrection is the same as Christ's. That is heterodox and is not a secondary issue.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 06:26 PM

Dee Dee wrote:

WE BELIEVE in the personal, visible RETURN OF CHRIST to earth and the establishment of His Kingdom, in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment and eternal blessing of the righteous and endless suffering of the wicked; we believe in a final seven year period of tribulation before which all true believers, past and present, will be ruptured into heaven, and after which Christ returns to the earth for the Millennium.

[sidenote: it really did say RUPTURED (lol!!!)]

That last paragraphs contain much which I will tell you vehemently is NOT taught in the Bible.

Dee Dee wrote:
And I am waiting for you to condemn as cultic the Calvary Chapel statement of faith. How consistent are you willing to be?

I do think that that last paragraph is, strictly, heterodox. In my view, its not such a big deal, and not really "adding to Scripture", because there are parts of the Bible that can be easily interpreted to mean what they claim, and the Bible of course talks about the rapture, about periods of tribulation, etc. in Revelation and other places.

In contrast, AiG states this as a "Basic" tenet in their "Statement of Faith" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/About/faith.asp):

Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

This AiG basic tenet of faith is very different from the Calvary Chapel statement. AiG is pulling something completely untouched in the Bible and making it part of a creed. Of course limited biological change of organisms, or only detrimental mutations is consistent with Scripture. Affirming consistency is very different from claiming that Scripture actually teaches such things or requiring such extra-Biblical beliefs as a basic tenet of faith in a "creed." That is indeed dangerously close to "adding to Scripture."

z

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 06:35 PM

Today @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123084#post123084)
Zeus:

I do think that that last paragraph is strictly heterodox. In my view, its not such a big deal, and not really "adding to Scripture", because there are parts of the Bible that can be easily interpreted to mean what they claim, and the Bible of course talks about the rapture, about periods of tribulation, etc. in Revelation and other places.

And there are parts easily interpreted to mean a lot of things in isolation, and you have jsut basically condemned as heterodox the majority of Christians today and in fact anyone who does not agree with you on secondary issues, and have the chutzpah to say that I was being harsh by saying you have a heretical view of the resurrectoin which is an essential of the faith. This is amazing to me. I strictly use the word heterodox to mean an abherration or denial of an essential of the faith. You have elevated to litmus tests of orthodoxy strictly secondary issues but have an issue when someone applies a much more restrictive standard to you. I would NEVER call futurists heterodox. It cheapens the word.

And I am not going to discuss AiG here because at least you showed that you are consistent with your condemnation as heresy anyone who does not agree with you even on secondary issues. If I did that I would not have one leader here at TWeb since I disagree with every single one of them (except possibly Faramir) on secondary issues.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 06:41 PM

Zeus:
I affirm both of those [The Nicene and Apostle's Creeds]. The Nicene Creed simply says "resurrection of the dead" -- it has nothing in it about it being "bodily" or "physical" or even "material". The Apostle's Creed says "resurrection of the body." As should be clear from my discussion with JP, I firmly believe that.

Dee Dee:
I am sorry but that is a completely shameless word game. The authors meant something by those words, words do not appear in a vacuum. I might as well call the liberal Jewish belief that we are resurrected by living on in the memories of our loved ones as in conformity to these creeds if we are going to act like words are magical and we can pour any meaning into them that we please. You are completely wrenching out of history and authorial intent, a practiced which is completley illegitimate. You are in contravention and contradiction to both creeds which is the only standard by which I ever claim anyone to be heterodox which is a narrow standard. I do not drop the charge of heresy lightly, you will rarely hear it from my lips, but the resurrection is a grave matter (pun intended).

I am not playing any word games. I explained exactly what I mean by those words, and my the meanings I give them are based upon Paul's terminology, no more no less. For you to have any sort of argument, you will have to show that my understanding of the meaning of our resurrected "body" is in contradiction to Paul's. Put up, eh?

Zeus:
And my view of the body is striclty Pauline. The resurrection body is a spiritual body, where the exact Greek term is 'soma pneumatikon'. Paul tells us that the resurrection body will not be a "natural body", where the exact Greek term is 'soma psuchikon'. Psuche and psuchikon refer to the fleshly, natural, physical body that we presently have. It will be changed into something different, immortal, unperishable, incorruptible, and spiritual. That is the teaching of Paul.

The teaching of Paul is that our resurrectoin is like Christ's which you deny, which Paul then states is tantamount to denying Christ's resurrection.

I do NOT deny that. What I have denied is that our's is necessarily exactly the same as Christ's. Here is what Paul says:

1 Cor 15:47-49
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Paul is clearly alluding to the Genesis phrase "made in the image of God". Surely you don't mean to imply that being made in the image of something means exactly the same?

Z

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 06:57 PM

Today @ 06:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123099#post123099)
Zeus:

I am not playing any word games. I explained exactly what I mean by those words, and my the meanings I give them are based upon Paul's terminology, no more no less. For you to have any sort of argument, you will have to show that my understanding of the meaning of our resurrected "body" is in contradiction to Paul's. Put up, eh?

And I have briefly and others have as well. You refuse to except it. But REMEMBER I stated you were creedally heterodox, so all I have to assert is that you mean something different than the authors of the creeds, which is a historical FACT that you do. That is the word games. You pour an entirely different meaning into the words used and claim agreement and conformity. That is completely illegitimate.

I do NOT deny that. What I have denied is that our's is necessarily exactly the same as Christ's.

Same thing!! Your hairsplitting does not help your case whatsover..

I have already explained that my time is not what I would like it to be... I have promised to be back and I will.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 07:02 PM

Today @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123094#post123094)
Dee Dee Warren:

And there are parts easily interpreted to mean a lot of things in isolation, and you have jsut basically condemned as heterodox the majority of Christians today and in fact anyone who does not agree with you on secondary issues,

That's completely false. You can disagree with me on secondary issues all you want. It's when you start making ideas untouched in Scripture to be requirements in your own Statement of Faith that I think there is a problem. Surely you realize, like early Church Fathers did, that there are degrees of heterodoxy, some much more important than others. I strongly disagree with the Calvary Chapel SoF (that last paragraph), but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it because it is not that important of an issue. That last paragraph will not keep people from coming to Christ. In contrast, AiG's silliness has proven a large stumbling block to untold numbers of scientists. That is huge and inexcusable in my book. When a "secondary issue", which you require for belief, endangers people's salvation, that's when I get worked.

and have the chutzpah to say that I was being harsh by saying you have a heretical view of the resurrectoin which is an essential of the faith.

Darn tootin'. You have repeatedly thrown this allegation at me, without justifying yourself. You've yet to show that my beliefs about the resurrection are heterodox. JP, wanna help me out here?

This is amazing to me. I strictly use the word heterodox to mean an abherration or denial of an essential of the faith. You have elevated to litmus tests of orthodoxy strictly secondary issues but have an issue when someone applies a much more restrictive standard to you. I would NEVER call futurists heterodox. It cheapens the word.

That is not what heterodox means, strictly. Adding to the faith is as much a problem, like adding new books to the Canon, or requirement of belief in certain prophecies, etc. May I remind you of how Paul used the word in 1 Cor 11 and :

19_For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20_When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21_For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22_What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

According to Paul, even this is heterodox. I use the term in a much narrower sense than this Biblical usage.

And I am not going to discuss AiG here because at least you showed that you are consistent with your condemnation as heresy anyone who does not agree with you even on secondary issues. If I did that I would not have one leader here at TWeb since I disagree with every single one of them (except possibly Faramir) on secondary issues.

As I stated above, you are grossly misrepresenting my views. You can disagree with me on secondary issues all you want. It's when you start making ideas untouched in Scripture to be requirements in your own Statement of Faith that I think there is a problem.

Z

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 07:11 PM

Hey, I'm trying to keep up with you! :smile:

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 07:16 PM

Today @ 07:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123122#post123122)
Zeus:

That's completely false. You can disagree with me on secondary issues all you want. It's when you start making ideas untouched in Scripture to be requirements in your own Statement of Faith that I think there is a problem.

You think it is a problem that a church requires its membership to beleive what they hold Scripture to say? They obviously do not believe it untouched by Scripture yet you just condemned premill futurism as heresy.

Surely you realize, like early Church Fathers did, that there are degrees of heterodoxy, some much more important than others. I strongly disagree with the Calvary Chapel SoF (that last paragraph), but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it because it is not that important of an issue. That last paragraph will not keep people from coming to Christ.

Nonsense, I know people who have apostasized becuase of exactly that sort of thing. You simply have a jihad against AiG.

In contrast, AiG's silliness has proven a large stumbling block to untold numbers of scientists.

And Hugh Ross's silliness has caused apostasy. I can match you tit for tat. Read Dan Barker's deconversion testimony and see what theistic evolution did for him. You are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended again).

That is huge and inexcusable in my book. When a "secondary issue", which you require for belief, endangers people's salvation, that's when I get worked.

And those quoted above do that same. I nearly apostasized over futurism. I know people who have. So I do hope you are now getting all worked up over futurism and theistic evoluation.

Darn tootin'. You have repeatedly thrown this allegation at me, without justifying yourself. You've yet to show that my beliefs about the resurrection are heterodox. JP, wanna help me out here?

I sure have by stating that you are in contravention of the creeds, and I have stated my rationale. You refuse to accept it. Refusing to accept it is different from not stating anything. And I have history on my side in which your view has been considered heterodox through the ages. I doubt you want to appeal to JP here.

That is not what heterodox means, strictly. Adding to the faith is as much a problem, like adding new books to the Canon, or requirement of belief in certain prophecies, etc. May I remind you of how Paul used the word in 1 Cor 11 and :

Well you are backtracking, then you do condemn Calvary Chapel just as strongly. The problem is that you are getting gored on your own horn and you do not like it. And you still never answered how you got your undies all in a nit for me calloing you heterodox when you have just lobbed that label at EVERYONE who disagrees with you. But your OWN standard I have MUST consider you heterodox.

As I stated above, you are grossly misrepresenting my views. You can disagree with me on secondary issues all you want. It's when you start making ideas untouched in Scripture to be requirements in your own Statement of Faith that I think there is a problem.

Well Paul did not say holding to heresy is fine as long as you keep it out of your statement of faith. And almost all churches requires agreement with the SoF for membership so there you go, and you still get incensed when the microscope is turned on you, though you consider almost all of Christendom to be heterodox.

Well now you might be starting to play fair. Come on then, demonstrate that I mean something different than the authors of the creeds did ...

Oh please! You are not daring to suggest that they agreed with you are you? The weight of history is solidly against you. And if so, then you must deny that everyone who disgrees with you holds to the Creeds which again is most of Christendom.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 07:16 PM

Yesterday @ 11:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123115#post123115)
Dee Dee Warren:

And I have briefly and others have as well. You refuse to except it.

JP, who started this thread, has agreed that we no longer disagree. Who is left besides you? And you haven't made an argument yet!

But REMEMBER I stated you were creedally heterodox, so all I have to assert is that you mean something different than the authors of the creeds,

Well now you might be starting to play fair. Come on then, demonstrate that I mean something different than the authors of the creeds did ...

Same thing!! Your hairsplitting does not help your case whatsover..

Hairsplitting? My beliefs reflect Paul's, and that's "hairsplitting"?

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 07:17 PM

Today @ 07:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123128#post123128)
Zeus:

Hey, I'm trying to keep up with you! :smile:

And I am trying to keep up with you :teeth: - well I am going to cool my jets for a bit... I have SO much admin stuff to do that I have to get on. Forgive my departure for a bit...

JP, who started this thread, has agreed that we no longer disagree. Who is left besides you? And you haven't made an argument yet!

Socrates for one, and you have misunderstood JP. He DOES NOT hold to your view of the resurrection. And I have made an argument here and on the other thread. A fuller one is forthcoming.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 07:51 PM

Today @ 07:02 PM post located here
Zeus:

That's completely false. You can disagree with me on secondary issues all you want. It's when you start making ideas untouched in Scripture to be requirements in your own Statement of Faith that I think there is a problem.

You think it is a problem that a church requires its membership to beleive what they hold Scripture to say?

I think it is problematic when they go beyond the basics, like that found in the Nicene Creeds and Apostle's Creeds, yes. As I emphasized, there are degrees of problems -- some are very important, some are not. I see no good reason to make up a new creed when those two are around, and they recount the important points.

They obviously do not believe it untouched by Scripture yet you just condemned premill futurism as heresy.

Strictly it is. Its just not such an important one.

Surely you realize, like early Church Fathers did, that there are degrees of heterodoxy, some much more important than others. I strongly disagree with the Calvary Chapel SoF (that last paragraph), but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it because it is not that important of an issue. That last paragraph will not keep people from coming to Christ.

Nonsense, I know people who have apostasized becuase of exactly that sort of thing. You simply have a jihad against AiG.

Well I'm sure you can find an exception to any sort of statement like that. By far, most people, if they have a problem with futurism they will just change churches. Or do what you do. But you are correct, I think AiG is especially dangerous. I've known WAY too many people who have been adversely affected by that stuff.

In contrast, AiG's silliness has proven a large stumbling block to untold numbers of scientists.

And Hugh Ross's silliness has caused apostasy. I can match you tit for tat. Read Dan Barker's deconversion testimony and see what theistic evolution did for him. You are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended again).

I am no fan of Reasons to Believe, either. They've got major problems. And you've got your ideas mixed up - Hugh Ross is no theistic evolutionist, and neither is his organisation. Barker's problems are exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. These anti-science types have caused an enormous amount of confusion and have been huge stumbling blocks for many people, like Barker.

And furthermore, you are missing the point, again. The point is that AiG takes secondary isssues, ideas untouched in Scripture, to be requirements, as basic tenets, in a Statement of Faith. Reasons to Believe does nothing of the sort. Read their Statement of Faith (making ideas untouched in Scripture to be requirements in your own Statement of Faith). It is quite orthodox.

Your objections fall flat.

That is huge and inexcusable in my book. When a "secondary issue", which you require for belief, endangers people's salvation, that's when I get worked.

And those quoted above do that same.

See above. You're wrong.

I nearly apostasized over futurism. I know people who have. So I do hope you are now getting all worked up over futurism and theistic evoluation.

Like I said, you're missing the point, at least with theistic evolution. To my knowledge, there are NO theistic evolutionist organizations (or even individuals) who have made evolution or old earth stuff a requirement of belief in a statement of faith. That is the point.

Maybe futurism is worse than I had thought. You are only strengthening my opinion that their heterodox beliefs are bad news. (Though I'm unconvinced it is that big of a problem for very many people).

You have repeatedly thrown this allegation at me, without justifying yourself. You've yet to show that my beliefs about the resurrection are heterodox. JP, wanna help me out here?

I sure have by stating that you are in contravention of the creeds, and I have stated my rationale. You refuse to accept it. Refusing to accept it is different from not stating anything.

Dee Dee, all you have done is make the accusation. I refuse to accept random, unsupported accusations. Show me that the authors of the creeds meant something different than I beleive, and I will concede. Until you do, you're just not playing fair.

That is not what heterodox means, strictly. Adding to the faith is as much a problem, like adding new books to the Canon, or requirement of belief in certain prophecies, etc. May I remind you of how Paul used the word in 1 Cor 11 and :

Well you are backtracking, then you do condemn Calvary Chapel just as strongly.

I'm not backtracking -- I clearly said that I personally use a much more restricted definition of heterodox. OTOH, Paul might have admonished Calvary and used the word "heresy" -- I don't know. You certainly would have a better idea than me -- what do you think?

The problem is that you are getting gored on your own horn and you do not like it. And you still never answered how you got your undies all in a nit for me calloing you heterodox when you have just lobbed that label at EVERYONE who disagrees with you. But your OWN standard I have MUST consider you heterodox.

Nope. I am not taking secondary isssues, ideas untouched in Scripture, and making them requirements, as basic tenets, in a Statement of Faith. Sorry, but I'm not doing that. I don't take anything besides what is found in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. Touche.

As I stated above, you are grossly misrepresenting my views. You can disagree with me on secondary issues all you want. It's when you start making ideas untouched in Scripture to be requirements in your own Statement of Faith that I think there is a problem.

Well Paul did not say holding to heresy is fine as long as you keep it out of your statement of faith.

You're right, but I'm not an apostle. I have, OTOH, made my views here pretty clear, and I tell people when I think there is a problem. Condemning them, as you say? No. That is not my right.

And almost all churches requires agreement with the SoF for membership so there you go, and you still get incensed when the microscope is turned on you, though you consider almost all of Christendom to be heterodox.

Yeah, I probably do. Mostly in unimportant ways, but technically, yes. Look, I don't get all incensed when the "microscope is turned on me." If I have some incorrect beleifs, so be it. I'll change them. I've already learned some from this discussion of the resurrection body, and I've modified my views some. What gets me incensed is the fact that you make accusations, and refuse to explain to me why your accusations are correct. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Cheers,

Z

Sher

June 14th 2003, 07:55 PM

Today @ 07:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123131#post123131)
Zeus:

Who is left besides you?

/me raises hand of disagreement from the balcony ...

Really, Zeus ... Dee Dee has made a valid point here. If you are going to purport a set of standards ... and condemn by the same ... you must be prepared to meet critical inspection ... the application of those same standards applied to your own assertions.

Edit: And I think Reasons is worse ... they purport a creed that they don't appear to adhere to ...

/me sits back down and asks for a popcorn refill

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 07:57 PM

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123133#post123133)
Dee Dee Warren:

Socrates for one,

Well, Soc will disagree with me just for spite! Anyway, I'm not so sure that is the case anymore, since I've fully explained my view and since he's read this discussion between me and JP.

and you have misunderstood JP. He DOES NOT hold to your view of the resurrection.

Well, JP did say this here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122773#post122773):

I agree with that. Does that really mean we're through??

Looks like that may be the case. Spoilsport!

But I'll let JP speak for himself. Maybe he's changed his mind over some of the things I've said since?

Z

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 07:59 PM

Dee Dee, all you have done is make the accusation. I refuse to accept random, unsupported accusations. Show me that the authors of the creeds meant something different than I beleive, and I will concede. Until you do, you're just not playing fair.

That is nonsense Zeus. YOU are the one going against the tide of history. The burden of proof is ON YOU to show that what you believe is consistent. I have a great deal on my side, you are the one with the extreme minority view that has been condemned by many through the ages. You are implicitly claiming that the authors of the creeds agreed with you... :no:

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 08:02 PM

Today @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123162#post123162)
Sher:

* Sher raises hand of disagreement from the balcony ...

Really, Zeus ... Dee Dee has made a valid point here. If you are going to purport a set of standards ... and condemn by the same ... you must be prepared to meet critical inspection ... the application of those same standards applied to your own assertions.

* Sher sits back down and asks for a popcorn refill

Exactly. By his own standards I am compelled to call him heterodox, so he should not be too upset over that, for he has just called everyone who does not agree with him heterodox.

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 08:04 PM

Today @ 07:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123164#post123164)
Zeus:

Well, Soc will disagree with me just for spite!

:no:

But I'll let JP speak for himself. Maybe he's changed his mind over some of the things I've said since?

Z

Did you really think that JP was agreeing with the totality of what you hold when he has so clearly indicated that he beleives that the rez body will be physical?

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 08:04 PM

Today @ 12:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123162#post123162)
Sher:

Really, Zeus ... Dee Dee has made a valid point here. If you are going to purport a set of standards ... and condemn by the same ... you must be prepared to meet critical inspection ... the application of those same standards applied to your own assertions.

Well, you would be correct, if that were what I was doing. But ...

Dee Dee:
The problem is that you are getting gored on your own horn and you do not like it. And you still never answered how you got your undies all in a nit for me calloing you heterodox when you have just lobbed that label at EVERYONE who disagrees with you. But your OWN standard I have MUST consider you heterodox.

Z:
Nope. I am not taking secondary isssues, ideas untouched in Scripture, and making them requirements, as basic tenets, in a Statement of Faith. Sorry, but I'm not doing that. I don't take anything besides what is found in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 08:06 PM

Today @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123171#post123171)
Zeus:

Well, you would be correct, if that were what I was doing. But ...

Z:
Nope. I am not taking secondary isssues, ideas untouched in Scripture, and making them requirements, as basic tenets, in a Statement of Faith. Sorry, but I'm not doing that. I don't take anything besides what is found in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.

And redefining the words.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 08:09 PM

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123170#post123170)
Dee Dee Warren:

Well, Soc will disagree with me just for spite!

:no:

That was a joke.

Did you really think that JP was agreeing with the totality of what you hold when he has so clearly indicated that he beleives that the rez body will be physical?

JP agreed that he uses "physical" the way I do "material", so yes, I think we are in agreement. He was the first to claim that it was an issue of semantics only. Like I said, let's let him speak for himself.

(Also, JP and I can fail to agree completely, but that is different from disagreeing).

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 08:12 PM

Today @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123167#post123167)
Dee Dee Warren:

That is nonsense Zeus. YOU are the one going against the tide of history. The burden of proof is ON YOU

OH baloney! You made the accusation -- you back it up!

"I claim Dee Dee is a hairy-legged leprechaun. The burden of proof is ON YOU ..."

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 08:12 PM

Today @ 08:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123176#post123176)
Zeus:

JP agreed that he uses "physical" the way I do "material", so yes, I think we are in agreement. He was the first to claim that it was an issue of semantics only. Like I said, let's let him speak for himself.

And JP believes in a material/physical resurrection, you do not.

(Also, JP and I can fail to agree completely, but that is different from disagreeing).

You fail to agree at all on the primary issue of the subject in dispute. That is disagreement.

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 08:15 PM

Today @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123178#post123178)
Zeus:

OH baloney! You made the accusation -- you back it up!

"I claim Dee Dee is a hairy-legged leprauchaun. The burden of proof is ON YOU ..."

Oh please, if you seriously think that a person going against hte tide of history and posits a dcotrine that has beensoundly condemend as heterodox for ages doesn't have the burden of proof to show (oops!) the authors of the creeds actually agree with you and it is the rest of Christians that are heterodox, then you are being loopy and cagey.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 08:16 PM

Today @ 01:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123179#post123179)
Dee Dee Warren:

And JP believes in a material/physical resurrection, you do not.

Dee Dee, you're not being fair, and I think you know it. JP and I both have the same idea of the resurrection body. He prefers to call it physical, I prefer to call it material. The semantics is all that is different.

Remember, these are English terms.

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 08:20 PM

Today @ 08:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123181#post123181)
Zeus:

Dee Dee, you're not being fair, and I think you know it. JP and I both have the same idea of the resurrection body. He prefers to call it physical, I prefer to call it material. The semantics is all that is different.

If you believe what JP's believes, that the graves will be empty and our actual bodies will rise and be tranformed and that there will be physicality to our bodies, then I no longer have an issue with you. But that is not what you believe as I understand it. You deny that resurrection is necessarily like Christ's. JP believes that it is. That is nothing short of major disagreement. You interpret our bodies to "made of" spirit. That is nonmaterial. Spirits do not have extensions into space. You have done some major redefining of words.

Sher

June 14th 2003, 08:22 PM

Today @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123185#post123185)
Dee Dee Warren:

If you believe what JP's believes, that the graves will be empty and our actual bodies will rise and be tranformed and that there will be physicality to our bodies, then I no longer have an issue with you. But that is not what you believe as I understand it. You deny that resurrection is necessarily like Christ's. JP believes that it is. That is nothing short of major disagreement. You interpret our bodies to "made of" spirit. That is nonmaterial. Spirits do not have extensions into space. You have done some major redefining of words.

That's exactly what I got too Zeus ... sorry.

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 08:29 PM

I have no desire to argue for the sake of argument. I would love to discover that I have been smoking crack and that I totally misunderstood you and that we actually agree, cuase I like you. I don't really enjoy debating people that I like and having to call them heterodox.

Justme

June 14th 2003, 08:45 PM

Hi whoever,

The graves will be empty....

What denomination, group, organization, other than the JW actually believe the graves will be empty.

I gotta tell you I know a lot of people over a real long time and I don't know a single soul who would say the graves will be empty..

I agree with the Nicene Creed, too.

In one of Dee Dee's posts I thought she said there would be a future tribulation.... now I'm totally confused, don't preterist hold that this was 70 AD?

I get to where I think I get the drift, then a new statement wipes me out, I'll never figure this preterist, premill, futrisrt,etc stuff out.
I think I'll give up on this religious talk and go find a nice lively tavern.

Justme

Sher

June 14th 2003, 08:56 PM

Today @ 08:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123200#post123200)
Justme:

What denomination, group, organization, other than the JW actually believe the graves will be empty.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the JW comment but ...

{John 5:28-29} "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth-- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Precedence:
(Matt 27:52-53) and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

{emphasis mine}

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 09:08 PM

Today @ 01:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123185#post123185)
Dee Dee Warren:

If you believe what JP's believes, that the graves will be empty and our actual bodies will rise and be tranformed and that there will be physicality to our bodies, then I no longer have an issue with you. But that is not what you believe as I understand it.

Well, you did not read this thread then. That is what I believe. I disagreed with the term "physical" until JP explained to me what he (and presumably most other people) meant by it. Once I understood how he defined "physical" I agreed. As I said, I think "physical" is misleading, since what I consider to be the normal English usage of the term is not how JP used it. I think "material" is a better choice. My deal here is exactly analogous to how some Churches have changed the word "catholic" in the creeds to "universal". Of course Catholic used to mean universal, and that is how the early father's meant it, but the meaning of the term has changed throughout history, so it is best to retranslate it to better represent the original meaning. I see the "physical/material" problem as exactly the same.

You deny that resurrection is necessarily like Christ's. JP believes that it is. That is nothing short of major disagreement.

I'm not so sure JP actually believes that (especially the "necessarily" part). Anyway, I think it is obviously clear that our resurrection must be somehow different from Christ's. He was a man, yes, and I am a man -- but there were differences. I'm not inspired for one, and I've never healed anyone to my knowledge. When Christ was resurrected, He was restored to His former glory. We will not be equal to Him. That means our resurrection must be different somehow. Do you really want to argue that we will be equal to Christ after the resurrection? If not, then we have no difference in opinion on the matter.

You interpret our bodies to "made of" spirit.

No I do not. I realize I implied that early on, but if you had read the two posts I linked to (and asked you to read) you would know that is exactly the part I had changed my mind on. Please read them so you can quit misrepresenting me:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122558#post122558

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122640#post122640

and JP's response to these two:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122773#post122773

Z

dizzle

June 14th 2003, 09:13 PM

Today @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123220#post123220)
Zeus:

I'm not so sure JP actually believes that (especially the "necessarily" part). Anyway, I think it is obviously clear that our resurrection must be somehow different from Christ's. He was a man, yes, and I am a man -- but there were differences. I'm not inspired for one, and I've never healed anyone to my knowledge. When Christ was resurrected, He was restored to His former glory. We will not be equal to Him. That means our resurrection must be different somehow. Do you really want to argue that we will be equal to Christ after the resurrection? If not, then we have no difference in opinion on the matter.

More on this later...

No I do not. I realize I implied that early on, but if you had read the two posts I linked to (and asked you to read) you would know that is exactly the part I had changed my mind on. Please read them so you can quit misrepresenting me:

I have followed this whole thread, and so has Sher who had the same impression as I . I will reread it. As I said, I will be glad to say we agree if we in fact do.

Sher

June 14th 2003, 09:37 PM

Honestly Zeus ... This post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122640#post122640) is one of the reasons, even after a re-read, that I maintain my assessment of your point. I don't know if I am not reading it clearly, you are not speaking your mind clearly, or a combination of the two ... but you seem to be equivocating back and forth from one post to the next.

Let me see if I can bring this to plain terms and see if we can come to a common understanding ...

The change to immortality a given, do you believe in a bodily resurrection (hoping that "bodily" will work better for physical or material) ... that Christ's body itself was gone ... IOW, do you believe that Christ's body, the body He walked around with, left the grave and that was what was seen by those who He had contact with after the Rez? And do you believe that we will follow in the same manner?

/me thinks didn't I say I wasn't leaving the balcony ... steps off soap box and goes to have dinner.

Zeus

June 14th 2003, 09:43 PM

Today @ 02:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123236#post123236)
Sher:

Honestly Zeus ... This post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=122640#post122640) is one of the reasons, even after a re-read, that I maintain my assessment of your point. I don't know if I am not reading it clearly, you are not speaking your mind clearly, or a combination of the two ... but you seem to be equivocating back and forth from one post to the next.

I don't understand why you guys think this -- by the time I'd written those two posts I had worked out where the confusion was. What do you think is inconsistent between them?

The change to immortality a given, do you believe in a bodily resurrection (hoping that "bodily" will work better for physical or material)

"Bodily" is great, since there is no potential for misunderstanding. Paul clearly says bodies.

... that Christ's body itself was gone ... IOW, do you believe that Christ's body, the body He walked around with, left the grave and that was what was seen by those who He had contact with after the Rez? And do you believe that we will follow in the same manner?

Heck yeah -- I've thought all that from the beginning, no question.

I'm telling you -- my hangup is with the word "physical". You have to understand what Paul meant by "spiritual bodies" (soma pneumatikon) and "physical bodies" (soma psuchikon) to appreciate my point.

Justme

June 14th 2003, 10:04 PM

Hi Sher,

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the JW comment but ...

I'm aware that the Watchtower teaches it's followers that they will someday come out of their graves and walk around planet earth again.

{John 5:28-29} "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth-- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Exactly, now a close look at verses such as these should clear things up.

This was said prior to when Jesus died on the cross. No one could be 'raised' or no one could enjoy 'eternal' life at this point because Jesus had not made the ultimate sacrifice to allow any mortal man to enter Heaven. All who died prior to the cross, and possibly some time after, would 'sleep in the dirt.' They were laying in the graves and some time in the future, as John wrote said this, they would hear Jesus voice and come out. If that 'coming out' was a physical, leaving- the- grave- empty thing it would not have happened yet because those physical bodies are still in the ground. If, however, it is a spiritual 'coming out' it could happen any time. The natural body returns to the dust and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
So it is left to determine when those dead would hear Jesus voice. See John 5:25.

25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and HAS NOW COME when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

(Matt 27:52-53) and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Very interesting verse here. However, these saints may have A-ppeared, they then died and DIS-appeared, that doesn't sound like eternity and it really doesn't show an example of what is being talked about on this forum.

I'm guessing all the things that happened , which are described here in Matthew 27, are to impress on people the importance of the man just killed. I get that idea from this verse.
54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

Unfortunately I have attended a lot of funerals in my life and all of those funerals have been in the larger denominations of protestant churches or in Catholic churches. In almost every service John 11 is used to tell of the eternal promise the bible gives.

John 11:25

25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;

Jesus tells Martha she will 'live' after she dies.

26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Jesus tells her she will NEVER die so the transformation from the natural to the spiritual is pretty much instantaneous.

So because Jesus told her that she would never die she is either still walking arround or she is living in the spiritual realm.

I like dealing with scripture so if you have other verses we can discuss, let's do it.

Justme

Zeus

June 15th 2003, 02:40 AM

Today @ 01:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123185#post123185)
Dee Dee Warren:

You deny that resurrection is necessarily like Christ's.

You claim that I believe this in opposition to the creeds and early Church father's, though you have given no support for that claim. I couldn't find much on it, but the main thing I did find supports my view that though they are alike, they are not exact.

St Augustine, "Whether Christ's body rose glorified?" ~400 AD

Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection.

jpholding

June 15th 2003, 07:55 AM

Good grief! Do I dare talke the weekend off at all?

I'm not so sure JP actually believes that (especially the "necessarily" part). Anyway, I think it is obviously clear that our resurrection must be somehow different from Christ's. He was a man, yes, and I am a man -- but there were differences. I'm not inspired for one, and I've never healed anyone to my knowledge. When Christ was resurrected, He was restored to His former glory. We will not be equal to Him. That means our resurrection must be different somehow. Do you really want to argue that we will be equal to Christ after the resurrection? If not, then we have no difference in opinion on the matter.

I don't agree with you here. You're confusing matters of identity with properties of the material body. The properties of our rez body will be the same as the properties of Jesus' -- where would you find justification for two or more brands? (New! Improved!) -- but that hardly equates with functional or ontological equality with Christ in heaven. Bear in mind that the Jesus living on earth was one who had taken the form of a servant -- one of us.

If you want to say with Augustine that ours is an "inferior" model of the same brand (one with fewer options, maybe??) I can live with that but it seems pointless -- and still seems more a question of identity, and more speculative than based in any actual data.

Justme

June 15th 2003, 09:46 AM

Hi whoever,

The properties of our rez body will be the same as the properties of Jesus' -- where would you find justification for two or more brands?

Like this??
1 Cor 15
49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

Two choices of body....

40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.

I know where there is a hundred or so verses that biblically indicate this heavenly life after physical life, but I have never seen any biblical hints of a third stage of 'living', biblically speaking., where the spirit re-unites with the natural body in the grave.

Can you point us to a 'combo' product, this out of the grave - back to earth 'body or whatever it is you use to come up with this? I've looked at some links alright, but I have found serious flaws in the ones I've read.

Thanks,

Justme

dizzle

June 15th 2003, 10:36 AM

Again like I said, I will be going back through this thread, but here is another question of clarification... and an observation because to me, Zeus, you are doing a bit of playing the martyr.

First, in the beginning you claimed theological kinship with Murray Harris in his conclusions. Once doing that you never clearly and boldly repudiated that that I saw. Since I am familiar with Harris and his heretical (yes, heretical) view of our resurrection much more than your views since we just met, this is what I was working from. It you later changed your mind in this thread, that is wonderful and I would praise God for any turning away from heresy, but you did not do it so clearly, two persons, myself and Sher at a minimum never caught it, and then once you saw that we were still operating on the paradigm that you agree with Harris, you shoudl have simply stopped and firmly and boldly and clearly explained that although in the beginning of this thread you did believe like that, and now you don't.

If I am understanding you greatly that you do no longer believe this way, that is a wonderful thing, and praise God!

My beef with you was in the dissimilarity of our bodies in composition from Christ's. Apparently we now agree, but may have some slight differences in levels of glory. I have no problem disagreeing there (if we even do) since that is not what was causing the hub-bub.

Socrates

June 15th 2003, 11:12 AM

Yesterday @ 09:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123084#post123084)
Zeus:

In contrast, AiG states this as a "Basic" tenet in their "Statement of Faith" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/About/faith.asp):

Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

This AiG basic tenet of faith is very different from the Calvary Chapel statement.

It's basic to a creationist organization, for goodness's sake. AiG is not a church, but an apologetics organization specializing in defending the authority of Scripture about origins.

Similarly, it would not be unreasonable for a Baptist church to put full immersion believer's baptism into their basic SoF, since that is a major mark of a Baptist church.

AiG is pulling something completely untouched in the Bible and making it part of a creed.

A creed for a creationist organization! And it is nonsensical to think this is "completely untouched in the Bible" when it follows from a plain reading of the text following the normal rules of grammar and context.

Of course limited biological change of organisms, or only detrimental mutations is consistent with Scripture.

And it is what Scripture actually teaches, since Genesis 1 describes creation of distinct kinds, air and sea creatures before land animals, creation of one man from dust and one woman from his side, the ancestors of all humans since.

Affirming consistency is very different from claiming that Scripture actually teaches such things or requiring such extra-Biblical beliefs as a basic tenet of faith in a "creed." That is indeed dangerously close to "adding to Scripture."

How is it adding to Scripture if it is a logical deduction? What a hypocrite, since you believe in evolution and billions of years, of which there isn't the slightest trace in Scripture, and contradicts it (or requires committing hermeneutical grievous bodily harm on it). No, Zeus is motivated by hatred of biblical creation brought about by his gullible acceptance of evolution from goo to you via the zoo, so he flays around with ridiculous charges like "cult" and "adding to Scripture", being totally oblivious to his own double standards.

Socrates

June 15th 2003, 11:21 AM

Today @ 01:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123708#post123708)
Dee Dee Warren:

First, in the beginning you claimed theological kinship with Murray Harris in his conclusions. Once doing that you never clearly and boldly repudiated that that I saw. Since I am familiar with Harris and his heretical (yes, heretical) view of our resurrection much more than your views since we just met, this is what I was working from. It you later changed your mind in this thread, that is wonderful and I would praise God for any turning away from heresy, but you did not do it so clearly, two persons, myself and Sher at a minimum never caught it, and then once you saw that we were still operating on the paradigm that you agree with Harris, you shoudl have simply stopped and firmly and boldly and clearly explained that although in the beginning of this thread you did believe like that, and now you don't.

I agree that Harris's views are heretical. I am yet to be convinced that Zeus is not as heretical.

The point must be, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul was teaching a bodily/physical/material resurrection of Jesus, and I don't care for the word games about which word should be used. Even Paul's seemingly insignificant words "he was buried" reflect a very early creed and make it clear that the Rez resulted in an empty tomb. Yet in the middle of this passage, Paul contrasts the resurrection that Jesus, the Last Adam, brought, with the death that the first Adam brought with sin. The logic is clear that the death that Adam brought must have a bodily/physical/material component as well. Note that the only type of death explicitly mentioned in Genesis as a punishment for Adam's sin was the type that would return him to the dust whence he came (Gen. 3:19).

Socrates

June 15th 2003, 12:11 PM

Yesterday @ 10:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123159#post123159)
Zeus, replying to Dee Dee Warren:

Nonsense, I know people who have apostasized becuase of exactly that sort of thing. You simply have a jihad against AiG.

Well I'm sure you can find an exception to any sort of statement like that. By far, most people, if they have a problem with futurism they will just change churches. Or do what you do. But you are correct, I think AiG is especially dangerous. I've known WAY too many people who have been adversely affected by that stuff.

And AiG has known many people who were adversely affected by the compromisers, and restored by AiG's consistent stand on the authority of Scripture in everything it affirms. See for example the testimonies of "Sonia" and "Joel Galvin" -- Creation magazine opened my eyes to the Gospel! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0418.asp) and Faith shipwrecked by compromising ‘Christian’ colleges; restored by Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/joel_galvin_testimony.asp). And Zeus himself is logically led by his evolutionary faith to deny that physical/material/bodily death is the result of sin, and thus to veer towards Harris's heretical denial of the physical/material/bodily Resurrection. That's proof by itself of the pernicious effects of evolutionary compromise.

Zeus: In contrast, AiG's silliness has proven a large stumbling block to untold numbers of scientists.

DDW: And Hugh Ross's silliness has caused apostasy. I can match you tit for tat. Read Dan Barker's deconversion testimony and see what theistic evolution did for him. You are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended again).

I am no fan of Reasons to Believe, either. They've got major problems. And you've got your ideas mixed up - Hugh Ross is no theistic evolutionist, and neither is his organisation.

Nothing's been mixed up. Ross accepts the evolutionary timescale, order of events, and Scriptura sub scientia that motivates such compromise. Zeus resents Ross simply because Ross hasn't swallowed the entire materialistic agenda of evolution from goo to you via the zoo as Zeus has.

Barker's problems are exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. These anti-science types have caused an enormous amount of confusion and have been huge stumbling blocks for many people, like Barker.

Wrong again! If you were right, then the likes of you, Kenneth Miller, Denis Lamoureux should be bringing helping lead many Barkers back to Christ. No, it's notable that the Infidels actually want theistic evolutionists to come to TWeb. Why should that be? Obviously because the Infidels realise that theistic evolutionists pose not the slightest threat to the infidel faith. Rather, the Infidels realise that the TEs will white-ant the christian community here by telling them to trust "science" over the Bible for information about the history of Earth and life upon it. Lenin referred to Communist sympathizers in the West as "useful idiots", and that's a perfect description for the way the Infidels use theistic evolutionists.

And the Infidels hope that this trust in "science" will rub off on the rest of Scripture. E.g. science also says that dead men don't rise bodily, and that homosexuality might be genetic, so the Bible is wrong about the Rez and to claim that homosexual activity is an abomination. This has happened so many times already with liberals and apostates Zeus would see it staring him in the face, if he wasn't blinded by his vendetta against any dissent from goo-to-you evolution.

Zeus

June 15th 2003, 02:00 PM

Today @ 12:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123659#post123659)
jpholding:

Good grief! Do I dare talke the weekend off at all?

Zeus:
I think it is obviously clear that our resurrection must be somehow different from Christ's. He was a man, yes, and I am a man -- but there were differences. I'm not inspired for one, and I've never healed anyone to my knowledge. When Christ was resurrected, He was restored to His former glory. We will not be equal to Him. That means our resurrection must be different somehow. Do you really want to argue that we will be equal to Christ after the resurrection?

JP:
I don't agree with you here. You're confusing matters of identity with properties of the material body.

As we discussed earlier, you claim that the pre-rez body and the post-rez body are differentiated by functional terms. You also claim (and I agree, as it is Scriptural) that both the pre-rez and the post-rez body are material. From all human experience, function is a direct result of form, of material composition. You cannot have a different function without a change in composition. A different function necessarily implies a different composition. JP, you initially took issue with this, but then later agreed that the pre-rez and post-rez bodies are of different composition, given that there is continuity of sorts as indicated by the Pauline seed analogy. You thus appear to be arguing two contradictory points.

Perhaps you think that the difference in composition is not a necessary result of difference in function? If so, I just think that is a very technical, and somewhat pointless, argument, since that view would be consistent with mine in terms of what Scripture says, and my view makes more sense in terms of what we know of the material form/function relationship.

JP:
If you want to say with Augustine that ours is an "inferior" model of the same brand (one with fewer options, maybe??) I can live with that but it seems pointless

Perhaps pointless in your opinion, but, in any case, my views are in line with Augustine's.

I finally found the passage that had caused me to conclude that Jesus' rez and rez body was different from what ours will be:

Acts 13:34-36

And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: "I will give you the sure mercies of David.'"
35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm:

'You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.'

36 "For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.

All of us who die before the second coming will see corruption. It begins immediately at death. IN contrast, something strange was up with Jesus' "soma psuchikon" -- it did not see corruption, even though dead for three days. Thus, the continuity between Jesus' "soma psuchikon" and His "soma pneumatikon" was perfect and exact. Ours will not be, because as Paul states, our "soma psuchikon" is like a seed that grows and blossoms into the post-rez "soma pneumatikon". That was not the case with Jesus. His resurrection was of a different sort than ours, and his material body was never corrupted. His was the first fruit, and the exemplar, and our bodies will be like his, but I cannot see how ours will be identical. As Augustine says, ours is of a lesser glory, and since glory is the main stated difference between our "soma psuchikon" and our "soma pneumatikon", it makes complete sense to me to claim that our "soma pneumatikon" will be somewhat different from His.

Even if you disagree with me on this point, JP, do you agree that this view is not heterodox?

Zeus

June 15th 2003, 02:11 PM

Today @ 04:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123742#post123742)
Socrates:

I agree that Harris's views are heretical. I am yet to be convinced that Zeus is not as heretical.

Soc and all - just because I agree with parts of Harris' thinking does not mean I agree with all of it. JP also agrees with some of Harris.

The point must be, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul was teaching a bodily/physical/material resurrection of Jesus, and I don't care for the word games about which word should be used.

The words we use today should reflect as much as possible the original meaning intended by Paul and the early Church fathers. That is my only point. Dee Dee strongly agrees with me on that point, though I'm not sure she gets my hangup with the word physical. It really doesn't matter as long as we both have the same view of what the original words meant. I beleive in the material, bodily resurrection of Christ and the believers in the exact sense that Paul explains it.

Even Paul's seemingly insignificant words "he was buried" reflect a very early creed and make it clear that the Rez resulted in an empty tomb. Yet in the middle of this passage, Paul contrasts the resurrection that Jesus, the Last Adam, brought, with the death that the first Adam brought with sin. The logic is clear that the death that Adam brought must have a bodily/physical/material component as well.

I agree with all that - there was an empty tomb because Jesus body was resurrected. It was a material body as it could be felt, touched, and he ate stuff. The death of Adam was of course a physical, bodily, and material death, and that was part of the curse. I have never questioned any of this.

The only part I really have had issue with is calling the resurrection a "physical" resurrection. I think "physical" is a misplaced, misleading term here. The reason is because I think "psuchikos" is best translated as "physical". If "physcial" means "psuchikos", it is incorrect to call the resurreciton physical, because acccording to Paul, our resurrection is NOT "psuchikos." Surely you guys can appreciate that point.

Z

Sher

June 15th 2003, 02:21 PM

Today @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123831#post123831)
Zeus:

I finally found the passage that had caused me to conclude that Jesus' rez and rez body was different from what ours will be:

[Acts 13:34-37]

All of us who die before the second coming will see corruption. It begins immediately at death. IN contrast, something strange was up with Jesus' "soma psuchikon" -- it did not see corruption, even though dead for three days.

Come on Zeus ... What about Lazarus?

Human forms are actually "corrupting" as we speak, even while still alive, if you want to be technical ... but you are using verses that speak of David's earthly body still rotting in the grave converse to Jesus' body ... to promote something that is unrelated to the point here.

Zeus

June 15th 2003, 02:29 PM

Today @ 03:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123708#post123708)
Dee Dee Warren:

First, in the beginning you claimed theological kinship with Murray Harris in his conclusions.

As I pointed out in another post, agreeing with some of Harris is not agreeing with all. JP also agrees with parts of Harris' interpretations. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Anyway, I have never intrepreted Harris as not believing in a bodily resurrection. If he does, then I do disagree. I only quoted Harris in support of my view that the pre- and post-rez bodies are not of the same composition, and JP even agrees with me on that point. Harris seems to overemphasize the discontinuity -- I believe in a continuity of some kind, but I don't understand its nature. JP pointed out that it "doesn't matter" and I agree.

My beef with you was in the dissimilarity of our bodies in composition from Christ's. Apparently we now agree, but may have some slight differences in levels of glory. I have no problem disagreeing there (if we even do) since that is not what was causing the hub-bub.

It appears that we do agree on all the main points, at least the ones you think disagreement on would mean heterodoxy. It sure appears to me that the majority of our apparent disagreement has been entirely semantic and/or degree of emphasis on certain points.

Zeus

June 15th 2003, 02:31 PM

Today @ 07:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123843#post123843)
Sher:

Come on Zeus ... What about Lazarus?

Yes, exactly. Lazurus stunk.

quetzalphoenix

June 15th 2003, 03:30 PM

Hey... could some of you who hold to the physical/material resurrection of Jesus help me out in Vladmir's thread on whether Jesus has a human body now? I'm getting frustrated debating with TSmith--who is a JW and some assistance would be useful! :argh:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123867#post123867

By the way, since Easter, my church has been focusing in preaching on the importance of the resurrection. I've known its importance before, but recently the centrality of a glorified Jesus Christ to my salvation/sanctification/future hope has become more clear. Because of this, I get saddened/frustrated when Christians hold to something more "spiritual" ... at the expense of the deep reality of God's redemption.

Robyn Banks

June 15th 2003, 09:59 PM

Dee Dee Warren:
Since I am familiar with Harris and his heretical (yes, heretical) view of our resurrection
Dee Dee -

I may have missed this, as I joined the thread midway through. But could you please provide a specific example (by way of quotation) of something heretical in Harris' view of the resurrection.

I have only discussed this verbally with Murray Harris, and have never read his writings on the subject to any extent. But I heard nothing from him that was inconsistent with orthodox creeds. So I am curious as to what it is that was allegedly 'heterodox'.

(I am aware of Geisler's opinion, but I don't doubt that Harris dwarfs Geisler in biblical exegesis as well as critical thought. I don't follow Harris' views on many things, but just acknowledge that he is a meticulous NT scholar whose reasons have several layers more depth that those of the populist Geisler. Harris may be wrong in his conclusions, but we are usually left with no doubt that he has considered the positions and presuppositions thoroughly, and are provided with clearly stated reasons for his conclusions.)

Robyn Banks

George Blaisdell

June 15th 2003, 10:00 PM

Zeus:

Very nice. That's Eastern Orthodox? Sounds very close to how I've read it ...

z

The difference is the body. We do not allow creamation, and bury our dead whose very bodies belong not to us but to Christ, hence the existence of grave yards in the Church.

The resurrection, as Dee points out, has always been understood to be physical, like Christ's - And indeed, the incorruptibility of the bodies of saints is a common event.

The spiritual body, as the resurrection of Christ so plainly shows forth, is indeed a body... And our union with Christ makes Christ's body our body...

geo

quetzalphoenix

June 15th 2003, 11:45 PM

Today @ 04:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124040#post124040)
George Blaisdell:

The difference is the body. We do not allow creamation, and bury our dead whose very bodies belong not to us but to Christ, hence the existence of grave yards in the Church.

The resurrection, as Dee points out, has always been understood to be physical, like Christ's - And indeed, the incorruptibility of the bodies of saints is a common event.

The spiritual body, as the resurrection of Christ so plainly shows forth, is indeed a body... And our union with Christ makes Christ's body our body...

geo

George: I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but I think that your church's insistence of burial rather than cremation makes sense. It is a reminder that we will be raised bodily. Many Christians I know give no second thought to cremation, which the Bible appears to consider a pagan practice. (I heard one sermon by a PCA minister in Washington on the topic, though--very convincing)

I'm curious what you mean by the "incorruptibility" of the bodies of believers being a common event...?

George Blaisdell

June 16th 2003, 12:35 AM

Today @ 08:45 PM
quetzalphoenix:

>>>George: I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but I think that your church's insistence of burial rather than cremation makes sense. It is a reminder that we will be raised bodily. Many Christians I know give no second thought to cremation, which the Bible appears to consider a pagan practice. (I heard one sermon by a PCA minister in Washington on the topic, though--very convincing)<<<

Early on, I had not known of this - I was comfortable with being creamated, and figured being eaten by coyotes would be good... Getting back into the food chain, and all that - And then I was hit with: "You will only allow yourself to be buried, or you are out of the Church." So I did an abrupt about face - "Gimme the dirt!"

I'm curious what you mean by the "incorruptibility" of the bodies of believers being a common event...?

Not of mere believers, but of the saints, of those who are perfected in the faith.

They die, and their bodies often don't rot... [Or have limited rot] And they have a marvelous and sweet odor - They are called relics, and are venerated, and often are involved in healings... As the hem of Christ's garment healed the woman with an issue of blood, and the mere passing over of the shadow of an apostle healed some...

These folks, like Paul and Peter of old, are like spiritual Jedi, invincible in a lot of ways, with miracles of healing flowing from them in abundance, virtually angels in the flesh - They have always been a part of the Orthodox tradition, and are awesome to behold in action - They sleep little, and eat less, and fear nothing on earth, and only God in heaven...

As for me - I will rot and stink...

Guaranteed...

geo

Justme

June 16th 2003, 12:41 AM

Hi George,

The resurrection, as Dee points out, has always been understood to be physical, like Christ's - And indeed, the incorruptibility of the bodies of saints is a common event.

Would you tell me who these groups are that has always considered the second coming of Christ to be physical?

Like do Lutherns, do Catholics, do Anglicans? Who?

Justme

PS....
Please, don't use the blanket term 'christian' because I am one and I have never found this teaching in the Holy Bible, NT.( Please feel free to point it out to me as well.)

George Blaisdell

June 16th 2003, 01:07 AM

Today @ 09:41 PM
Justme:

> Hi George,

Hi me...

> Would you tell me who these groups are that have always considered the second coming of Christ to be physical?

Sure - They are the communion of Churches that are the Church that came into existence at Pentecost, and have never been prevailed against, not even by the gates of hell... Which still exist, as they always have since Christ...

> Like do Lutherns, do Catholics, do Anglicans? Who?

The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church - Eastern Orthodoxy - Mine is the Antiochian clump... [Where followers of Christ were first called Christians - Acts:__] The non-physical resurrection of the dead has never been taught...

> Justme

metoo...

PS....
Please, don't use the blanket term 'christian' because I am one and I have never found this teaching in the Holy Bible, NT.( Please feel free to point it out to me as well.)

I apologize for any offence I have caused you... Please forgive me...

Christ's resurrected body was a glorified body, and we are baptized into the body of Christ, and that spiritual body He appeared to so many in had marvelous qualities, among which was an ability to show up anywhere, be recognized or not, pass through material walls, and eat food... So there is no question that Christ's glorified and resurrected body, sitting at the right hand of God in the heavens, is physical, and everything more besides.... In Christ, the physical has been elevated to the Godhead, insofar as it is without sin...

Our bodies now are sin laden and corrupted, lost in sin unto death, due to our fallen and post Adamic nature, except insofar as we are in Christ, and are turned from sin...

The body of Christ suffers no such infirmity...

geo

Zeus

June 16th 2003, 03:42 AM

Yesterday @ 05:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123761#post123761)

Zeus:
But you are correct, I think AiG is especially dangerous. I've known WAY too many people who have been adversely affected by that stuff.

Socrates:
And AiG has known many people who were adversely affected by the compromisers, and restored by AiG's consistent stand on the authority of Scripture in everything it affirms. See for example the testimonies of "Sonia" and "Joel Galvin" -- Creation magazine opened my eyes to the Gospel! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0418.asp) and Faith shipwrecked by compromising ?Christian? colleges; restored by Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/joel_galvin_testimony.asp).

If those are the only two "testimonies" you can dredge up, relative to the millions of people that access your site, you have MAJOR problems. I am a single person, and I know dozens that find AiG-type YECism to be a major stumbling block to salvation. If you want testimonies, read Glenn Morton's list here: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/person.htm

Glenn's a friend of mine -- he was a very active YEC for many years, even publishing mutiple articles in YEC journals. The guy had a serious crisis of faith when he was faced with reality in his job, his job being a professional geolgist helping find oil for oil companies. He learned from first hand experience that the YEC stuff that AiG and friends peddle is bunk, and it hit him hard. This is serious stuff. There are thousands of similar cases to Glenn's. Those of you who have professional research biologists or geologists in your churches --- ask them. Talk to them. This is a REAL problem, and the YECs are on the wrong side of the answer.

DDW: And Hugh Ross's silliness has caused apostasy. I can match you tit for tat. Read Dan Barker's deconversion testimony and see what theistic evolution did for him. You are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended again).

Zeus:
I am no fan of Reasons to Believe, either. They've got major problems. And you've got your ideas mixed up - Hugh Ross is no theistic evolutionist, and neither is his organisation.

Nothing's been mixed up. Ross accepts the evolutionary timescale, order of events, and Scriptura sub scientia that motivates such compromise. Zeus resents Ross simply because Ross hasn't swallowed the entire materialistic agenda of evolution from goo to you via the zoo as Zeus has.

I don't resent Ross. He is a very fine Christian man, who puts his faith into practice, and a good guy all round. He is very honest, and not in the least bit disingenuous, unlike others in this debate. I just think he's a bit confused. But you are very wrong, Soc. Ross is not an evolutionist, and you know it very well. You are equivocating in a very major way --- cosmological "evolution" is not biological evolution, and in science, when we talk about the theory of evolution, it is specifically in reference to biology. "Evolution" of course is also a layman term that can mean something as vague as simple change, and that is why physicists can talk about the "evolution" of a quantum mechanical system that happens on a timescale of nanoseconds involving nothing more than electons. Don't muddy the waters. Let's keep this honest, eh?

Undomiel

June 16th 2003, 06:30 AM

If I may, I think people in this thread are throwing around the word "heresy" entirely too much. Let's get back to the basics. Jesus didn't die and resurrect specifically for people who can debate the scriptures to this degree. He died and resurrected for everyone, regardless of their mental capacity or ability to argue the difference between physical and material in the original languages. What was most important was that we believe on Him, in His diety, in His salvation, that we repent from our prior state, that we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls and minds, and that we love our neighbors as ourselves. His message was extremely simple because extremely simple people deserve salvation as much as the theologian or rocket scientist. It is entirely inconsequential to your salvation to believe you must hold a particular viewpoint on whether your body is material or physical when you resurrect. Be happy you will be resurrected for Heaven's sake, and quit condemning each other.

dizzle

June 16th 2003, 06:40 AM

I am sorry Undomiel, but you are incorrect, and I will boldly and firmly proclaim the denial of our physical resurrection to be a heresy. I will NOT, unlike Zeus, call futurism or any secondary issue a heresy.

Here is why I hold so vociferoulsy to this:

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Paul declared that a belief in our resurrection is an essential of the faith. He meant something specific by those words, pourikng a different definition into them simply will not do. and he makes it clear by what he means in showing that if we do not rise, Christ is not risen, totally linking the two. Our resurrection is of the same nature as Christ's. This is absolutely an essential of the faith, just as much as the Trinity, or the atonement. A denial of any essential is heresy. I will not sacrifice the truth. This is seriously heavy stuff.

Undomiel

June 16th 2003, 06:44 AM

Today @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124387#post124387)
Dee Dee Warren:

I am sorry Undomiel, but you are incorrect, and I will boldly and firmly proclaim the denial of our physical resurrection to be a heresy. I will NOT, unlike Zeus, call futurism or any secondary issue a heresy.

Here is why I hold so vociferoulsy to this:

Paul declared that a belief in our resurrection is an essential of the faith. He meant something specific by those words, pourikng a different definition into them simply will not do. and he makes it clear by what he means in showing that if we do not rise, Christ is not risen, totally linking the two. Our resurrection is of the same nature as Christ's. This is absolutely an essential of the faith, just as much as the Trinity, or the atonement. A denial of any essential is heresy. I will not sacrifice the truth. This is seriously heavy stuff.

You missed my point. Do you not agree that a simple-minded fellow who loves Jesus and has received salvation will still go to heaven, regardless of whether or not he understands or even knows his body will be in any given state when it resurrects?

dizzle

June 16th 2003, 06:46 AM

Today @ 06:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124389#post124389)
Undomiel:

You missed my point. Do you not agree that a simple-minded fellow who loves Jesus and has received salvation will still go to heaven, regardless of whether or not he understands or even knows his body will be in any given state when it resurrects?

We are not dealing here with simple-minded folks. We do not parse our words to the lowest possible demoninator. A simple minded person would not even be following this conversation. To the nonsimpleminded God is going to require in light of the light given to them. Heresy requires understanding and an active denial. One cannot deny what one does not understand. Most people who deny the Trinity I do not believe are really denying it, but have failed to understand it, mostly due to the lack of proper doctrinal training to Christians in favor of a saccharine sweet version of Christianity.

And the Trinity is not a good example, for unlike the denail of the bodily resurrection, I do not find any clear statement in Scripture making it an issue of eternal peril, but the Deity of Christ most certainly is, which is why although I say Oneness persons are in error, they affirm the deity of Christ, and I leave it there in most part. I am very, very cautious in my appellation of heresy, VERY cautious.

Undomiel

June 16th 2003, 06:58 AM

Today @ 11:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124390#post124390)
Dee Dee Warren:

We are not dealing here with simple-minded folks. We do not parse our words to the lowest possible demoninator. A simple minded person would not even be following this conversation. To the nonsimpleminded God is going to require in light of the light given to them.

We do not parse our words to the lowest possible demoninator.

This sentence of yours says alot to me. The trouble is, if Zeus still believes in the diety of Jesus, in the salvation experience, has prayed the sinner's prayer, has received salvation, has been both baptized in water [the flesh] and in blood [the spirit], and has begun that arduous trek to eternity, etc, whether he thinks his body is material or physical in the resurrection seems like trying to build complications onto what Christ did for him - to make void salvation based on something as minute as whether you believe your body will be exactly the same, or changed. Also, isn't it dangerous to call one another heretics, when the possibility exists that you are saying the same things? To call someone a heretic is like saying the Lord is not with that person. That's so dangerous.

dizzle

June 16th 2003, 10:17 AM

Today @ 06:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124391#post124391)
Undomiel:

We do not parse our words to the lowest possible demoninator.

This sentence of yours says alot to me. The trouble is, if Zeus still believes in the diety of Jesus, in the salvation experience, has prayed the sinner's prayer, has received salvation, has been both baptized in water [the flesh] and in blood [the spirit], and has begun that arduous trek to eternity, etc, whether he thinks his body is material or physical in the resurrection seems like trying to build complications onto what Christ did for him

Firstly, Zeus has said that he and I agree, so this is now (hopefully) an academic issue. Second, I did not place these alleged complications Paul did. I say no more than the Scriptures themselves say and I do so without any apology. And I never declared anyone unsaved, I simply gave the dire warning of Paul. I cannot know who is saved but for myself.

- to make void salvation based on something as minute as whether you believe your body will be exactly the same, or changed.

You say it is minute, Scripture says otherwise. The resurrection is a cental doctrine of the Christian faith.

Also, isn't it dangerous to call one another heretics, when the possibility exists that you are saying the same things? To call someone a heretic is like saying the Lord is not with that person. That's so dangerous.

It is rather far more dangerous to brush aside errors in essential doctrines. The more loving thing to do is to confront error, especially error in the essentials. I go no further than what Paul did. I do not hesitate to declare the whole counsel of God, popular or not. When it comes to the resurrection, I must, in a pale and anemic imitation of a hero of the faith say, Here I Stand, I Cannot Do Otherwise.

Justme

June 16th 2003, 10:31 AM

Hi George,

I apologize for any offence I have caused you... Please forgive me...

No, no, you didn't offend me at all, sorry I came across as being offended.

Thanks for pointing out that Eastern Orthodox believe this physical resurrection point. I don't recall even seeing that church around my community, but I'm 130 miles from a big city.

In the mainstream/oldline/whatever churches such as Luthern, Anglican,RCC , in the many times I have been in any of those for funerals, I have never heard any mention of a physical 'hope' for the dearly departed, only the Heavenly existance. So naturally, when I see this thread that is saying the physical -out-of-the-grave resurrection is so common, I have to ask 'where'?

Thanks again

Justme

Justme

June 16th 2003, 10:48 AM

Hi Dee Dee,

Paul declared that a belief in our resurrection is an essential of the faith. He meant something specific by those words, pourikng a different definition into them simply will not do. and he makes it clear by what he means in showing that if we do not rise, Christ is not risen, totally linking the two. Our resurrection is of the same nature as Christ's. This is absolutely an essential of the faith, just as much as the Trinity, or the atonement. A denial of any essential is heresy. I will not sacrifice the truth. This is seriously heavy stuff.

You quoted a number of verses from 1 Cor 15 which says we can believe that Jesus was resurrected and we will be as well.
It is made quite clear that Jesus acended to Heaven, it is quite clear that there are two choices of 'bodies', the earthly and the heavenly, it is quite clear that what the 'heavenly' body is exactly has not made known to us.
So my question is if Jesus went up to Heaven why wouldn't we?
Heaven is the eternal state which is invisible to mortal man.
So how do all these 'physical bodies' float around in space.

This whole thing just never adds up to me. I like to try to understand how others arrive at certain conclusions, but this thing just kinda keeps 'backfeedin'.

Are there many different veiws on this physical resurrection being displayed on this very thread?

I simply isn't making any sense to me.

Justme

Zeus

June 16th 2003, 12:07 PM

George Blaisdell

June 16th 2003, 12:51 PM

Today @ 07:31 AM
Justme writes:

Hi George,

> Thanks for pointing out that Eastern Orthodox believe this physical resurrection point.

We are sown in corruption, but raised in incorruption. There is a transition. Christ Himself told Mary to NOT touch Him [John 20:17], for he had not yet ascended to His Father, yet after the ascension, He had Thomas thrust his hands into the wounds... So that the resurrection body is physical, but is glorified physical, and not just "up and out of the grave and walking around upon the earth" physical - It is a body that is transformed by having ascended to the Father, and it is not the soulish and fleshy and physical body we now have... We are not saved unto the bodies which we now will be required to lay aside, which are indeed unto corruption, but unto God's resurrection and transformation of those bodies into new bodies, glorified and resurrected bodies...

> I don't recall even seeing that church around my community, but I'm 130 miles from a big city.

I have to drive 65 miles each Sunday to attend services - I live 90 miles from big-city Seattle... And travel in an opposite direction! The Orthodox Church has been mostly an immigrant Church in the US - Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Antiochian [Arabic] Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, and on and on... It is the Church that the Roman Catholic Church broke away from in the 11th century [1054]. [The Roman Pope today calls us the "Ancient Church", and regards us as his 'missing lung'...] Ours is the historical Church that was founded at Pentecost, that never changed, that kept to the first 7 ecumenical councils, that has faithfully handed the Faith from generation to generation, even unto the present day... So that you normally will not see them from corner to corner, at least in the US. In Greece, perhaps... This Church has been the best kept secret in the US for a lot of years now - Hidden, yet right out in the open... Not trying to hide, but treasuring the humility of not being loud-mouthed [like me!].

> In the mainstream/oldline/whatever churches such as Luthern, Anglican, RCC ,

By Orthodox standards, justme, these are mostly but kids, as churches go, except, of course, for the RCC...

> in the many times I have been in any of those for funerals, I have never heard any mention of a physical 'hope' for the dearly departed, only the Heavenly existance.

Yes, they have found repose in the Lord, we pray, until the dread hour of the final judgement...

> So naturally, when I see this thread that is saying the physical -out-of-the-grave resurrection is so common, I have to ask 'where'?

The resurrection "out-of-the-grave" is a future event, to which we will all be subject, I shoud think, whether for eternal Life, or unto condemnation. But we will ALL be resurrected in Christ - It's just that for some it will be heaven, and for others it will be hell - For upon this earth, who can look upon the face of God and live? We see but darkly now...

> Thanks again

Well, I'm glad I was not too offensive with you - I do tend to regard my Church as Christianity, and can get careless in that arrogance...

Justme

geo

jpholding

June 16th 2003, 01:02 PM

For the head of the pantheon:

As we discussed earlier, you claim that the pre-rez body and the post-rez body are differentiated by functional terms. You also claim (and I agree, as it is Scriptural) that both the pre-rez and the post-rez body are material. From all human experience, function is a direct result of form, of material composition.

When you have an incarnated member of the Godhead with functions and abilities of his own, it seems to me that "human experience" goes out the window as a sole consideration. :smile:

In terms of using Acts 13 --

All of us who die before the second coming will see corruption. It begins immediately at death. IN contrast, something strange was up with Jesus' "soma psuchikon" -- it did not see corruption, even though dead for three days.

I'm not sure if this is a wise interpretation to make in light of limited knowledge of forensics in the first century. After three days (and especially given Jewish burial methods, the climate, etc) there isn't going to be that much visible decay in a body, and the smell you appeal to for Lazarus -- well, no such observation was made of Jesus' body. It's also open as to when a body was thought of as "corrupted" -- I would think there'd have to be a substantial amount of rot (so that the body would not be able to be recognized, for example) before such a strong word would be applied.

Moreover this only speaks of a pre-rez body, not the post-rez body, and it also doesn't address to what extent our OWN condition is restored in the resurrection. Even if you are right in this, that the original body may have been better preservable (again, doubtful from this view, and open to question -- who would God give Jesus a body that resisted decay, yet also give him one that bled and coud die?!?) this says nothing to the FINAL state.

Even if you disagree with me on this point, JP, do you agree that this view is not heterodox?

You'll find I am less concered with applying such labels and more concerned with "Is it true or not?" As for whether a view is heterodox I let each persn work that out for themselves.

dizzle

June 16th 2003, 01:42 PM

Paul himself used the term "heresy" without actually condemning people -- the forceful phrase he used was "I praise you not" for heretical actions/beliefs.

Not relevant to our conversation per se, but that is not always the case. Take a look at what Paul said to Hymenaeas. I do not think it was anything short of a condemnation. Thus my strong stand here:

www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

Undomiel

June 16th 2003, 02:25 PM

Today @ 03:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124399#post124399)
Dee Dee Warren:

Firstly, Zeus has said that he and I agree, so this is now (hopefully) an academic issue. Second, I did not place these alleged complications Paul did. I say no more than the Scriptures themselves say and I do so without any apology. And I never declared anyone unsaved, I simply gave the dire warning of Paul. I cannot know who is saved but for myself.

You say it is minute, Scripture says otherwise. The resurrection is a cental doctrine of the Christian faith.

It is rather far more dangerous to brush aside errors in essential doctrines. The more loving thing to do is to confront error, especially error in the essentials. I go no further than what Paul did. I do not hesitate to declare the whole counsel of God, popular or not. When it comes to the resurrection, I must, in a pale and anemic imitation of a hero of the faith say, Here I Stand, I Cannot Do Otherwise.

From what I can tell, he didn't deny the bodily resurrection at all. Seems he was saying the exact usage of the word "physical" was where he held his disagreement. In this sense, he thought the physical body differed from the material body in that our resurrected bodies would not be subject to the decay and corruption of our physical bodies - THIS MUCH HAD CHANGED - the corruption has put on incorruption. In other words, our physical bodies were the sinful version of our flesh, our material bodies are the new, everlasting version. Just a bit of semantics and hair-splitting. I'm not sure why he even thought this subject was important to debate since you're both saying the same things in the endgame.

Justme

June 16th 2003, 02:28 PM

Hi George,

Well, I'm glad I was not too offensive with you - I do tend to regard my Church as Christianity, and can get careless in that arrogance...

I understand. Thanks for your response.

Justme

Zeus

June 16th 2003, 02:35 PM

Today @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124541#post124541)
Dee Dee Warren:

Not relevant to our conversation per se, but that is not always the case. Take a look at what Paul said to Hymenaeas. I do not think it was anything short of a condemnation

Correct. That is just further support for my earlier statements that some heterodox views are very important, some are not so important (even though strictly heretical).

Zeus

June 16th 2003, 02:42 PM

Today @ 07:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124575#post124575)
Undomiel:

From what I can tell, he didn't deny the bodily resurrection at all. Seems he was saying the exact usage of the word "physical" was where he held his disagreement. In this sense, he thought the physical body differed from the material body in that our resurrected bodies would not be subject to the decay and corruption of our physical bodies - THIS MUCH HAD CHANGED - the corruption has put on incorruption. In other words, our physical bodies were the sinful version of our flesh, our material bodies are the new, everlasting version. Just a bit of semantics and hair-splitting. I'm not sure why he even thought this subject was important to debate since you're both saying the same things in the endgame.

You are right -- I never denied a bodily resurrection at all. They thought I was denying the bodily resurrection of Christ first, and then the bodily resurrection of the saints. I indeed was using confusing terminology early on, based on the fact that I usually mean "material" and "physical" to mean things in the scientific sense of matter and physics, things like fundamental particles and the periodic table.

I still think that my critics are overemphasizing the material nature of the body. This, in my view, is an over-reaction to Gnosticism and JW-type beliefs. It is clear as day that Paul calls our rez bodies "spiritual bodies". Thus, it is as incorrect to say that the rez is not bodily as it is to say it is not spiritual.

Z

TheFiveSolas

June 16th 2003, 02:55 PM

Zeus,

I'm coming into this conversation quite late and only scanned the first few pages in the thread so I'm not sure if the following has been asked.

Does the resurrected spiritual body, according to your view, have flesh and bones as Jesus' body does?

Luke 24:39
39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Taken from NASB 1995 Updated Edition

Also, can an immaterial spiritual body be physically touched as Jesus implies in the above?

Undomiel

June 16th 2003, 02:57 PM

Today @ 07:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124582#post124582)
Zeus:

I still think that my critics are overemphasizing the material nature of the body. This, in my view, is an over-reaction to Gnosticism and JW-type beliefs. It is clear as day that Paul calls our rez bodies "spiritual bodies". Thus, it is as incorrect to say that the rez is not bodily as it is to say it is not spiritual.

Z

Can you define your own understanding of the word material?

Undomiel

June 16th 2003, 02:59 PM

Today @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124587#post124587)
TheFiveSolas:

Also, can an immaterial spiritual body be physically touched as Jesus implies in the above?

Is he saying it's immaterial ?

TheFiveSolas

June 16th 2003, 03:04 PM

Undomiel,

I thought the denial of the one implies the other. Either something is physical/material or it isn't. Is there some third option that I'm not aware of?

Undomiel

June 16th 2003, 03:11 PM

Today @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124591#post124591)
TheFiveSolas:

Undomiel,

I thought the denial of the one implies the other. Either something is physical/material or it isn't. Is there some third option that I'm not aware of?

I was under the impression that he thought it was material, which meant he thinks it's physical but prefers to refer to it as material since it is different (i.e. eternal, uncorruptable form of our former temporary, corrupted flesh).

TheFiveSolas

June 16th 2003, 03:14 PM

Undomiel,

Well, I hope he/she clarifies as to whether a "spiritual body" is physical/material, able to be touched, and has physical/material flesh and bones.

Until then I'm just as confused as you are as to exactly what he/she means.

Zeus

June 16th 2003, 03:22 PM

Today @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124587#post124587)
TheFiveSolas:

Zeus,

I'm coming into this conversation quite late and only scanned the first few pages in the thread so I'm not sure if the following has been asked.

Does the resurrected spiritual body, according to your view, have flesh and bones as Jesus' body does?

Yes, as Jesus' has. But it is not simple flesh and bones, certainly not like the pre-rez body had. They have been transformed into something specifically associated with the spirit. I still think Jesus is differnt from ours in some way -- more glorified and perfectly representing his uncorrupted pre-rez body.

Also, can an immaterial spiritual body be physically touched as Jesus implies in the above?

Depends on what you mean by "immaterial". If "immaterial" there means the greek pneumatikos, then yes, it can be physically touched.

Z

Zeus

June 16th 2003, 03:26 PM

Today @ 07:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124589#post124589)
Undomiel:

Can you define your own understanding of the word material?

This is a semantic issue. I usually use the words "material" and "physical" to mean "made of the matter described in the periodic table." I think "physical" certainly has this conotation, that's why will can physicists "physicists." I don't want to force these definitions on you. I just think, especially after this long thread, that when talking about this stuff definitions should be layed out clearly, instead of just making a statement with words in it and assuming everyone has the exact same meaning attached to those words.

I think we can avoid this confusion if we refer to the greek. Psuchikos is the pre-rez body, like our current flesh and bones. It gets transformed into something that can be felt and touched and is specifically associated with pneuma, spirit. Paul of course never used the English words "physical" or "material", and neither did any of the early fathers.

Justme

June 16th 2003, 07:35 PM

Hi whoever,

Boy, things are getting hard to follow.

I think we should bring out what the term 'born again' is playing here. As I understand it, some consider the spiritual part of things to be when someone accepts Jesus and this produces some sort of religious experience which some call born again.

I understand the meaning of 'born again' in John 3 to be at the end of the natural/physical/earthly life we can be 'born again' a spiritual being, unseen to the mortals and 'living' in the invisible heavenly/spiritual realm.

I don't think that interpretatation would be the choice of some on this thread.

What part does this play?

Justme

Socrates

June 18th 2003, 11:43 PM

06-16-2003 @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124254#post124254)
Zeus:

Socrates:
And AiG has known many people who were adversely affected by the compromisers, and restored by AiG's consistent stand on the authority of Scripture in everything it affirms. See for example the testimonies of &quot;Sonia&quot; and &quot;Joel Galvin&quot; -- Creation magazine opened my eyes to the Gospel! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0418.asp) and Faith shipwrecked by compromising ?Christian? colleges; restored by Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/joel_galvin_testimony.asp).

If those are the only two "testimonies" you can dredge up, relative to the millions of people that access your site, you have MAJOR problems.

Apparently AiG has HUNDREDS of such testimonies.

I am a single person, and I know dozens that find AiG-type YECism to be a major stumbling block to salvation. If you want testimonies, read Glenn Morton's list here: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/person.htm

And at least one of those is not a Christian even now, so the compromisers didn't help. And like Zeus, all Morton ever does is yoke with atheists (in Zeus's case, Hume) to attack Biblical creationists, while not lifting a finger against the distortions by atheistic evolutionists against Christians. In fact, atheists love Morton, at least in so far as they can use his garbage to bash biblical Christians as they do often, but also laugh at him for his compromise and his pathetic claim that it could help win them over. Actually, I happen to know that a German atheist translated one of Morton's articles for his website, and was very surprised when a Christian informed him that Morton also claimed to be a Christian. What an appalling witness of unequally yoking with unbelievers!! :poke:

Glenn's a friend of mine -- he was a very active YEC for many years, even publishing mutiple articles in YEC journals.

So what? AiG has pointed out that the primary issue is not young v old earth, but biblical authority. Morton was never a biblical creationist. For him, "science" was always his primary authority. John Woodmorappe has known him for years and realised that even in Morton's allegedly creationist days, his thinking was uniformtiarian -- see www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

The guy had a serious crisis of faith ...

That's because he never accepted the authority of God's written Word, the Bible.

... when he was faced with reality in his job, his job being a professional geolgist helping find oil for oil companies. He learned from first hand experience that the YEC stuff that AiG and friends peddle is bunk, and it hit him hard.

And he has only a B.S. degree. There are Ph.D. geologists who are not impressed by his posturings and appeals to authority.

This is serious stuff. There are thousands of similar cases to Glenn's. Those of you who have professional research biologists or geologists in your churches --- ask them. Talk to them.

I live in Australia and have attended a creation camp and talked to Ph.D. biologists and geologists who have published work in secular science journals. So your attempt to argue from authority doesn't impress me in the least.

This is a REAL problem, and the YECs are on the wrong side of the answer.

Nothing's been mixed up. Ross accepts the evolutionary timescale, order of events, and Scriptura sub scientia that motivates such compromise. Zeus resents Ross simply because Ross hasn't swallowed the entire materialistic agenda of evolution from goo to you via the zoo as Zeus has.

I don't resent Ross.

Except that he hasn't kowtowed to materialism as much as you have.

He is a very fine Christian man, who puts his faith into practice, and a good guy all round. He is very honest, and not in the least bit disingenuous, unlike others in this debate.

Come off it. He often spouts forth the veriest nonsense, especially on Hebrew, and then resorts to bluff and bluster when called on it -- see http://answersingenesis.org/news/ross_gauntlet.asp And I've exposed his hypocrisy and disgraceful treatement of the great scholar Ussher (whom the agnostic Gould treated far more fairly) at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=93780#post93780

I just think he's a bit confused.

You're right there.

But you are very wrong, Soc. Ross is not an evolutionist, and you know it very well.

I know that he even accepts fixity of species, so he is not a biological evolutionist.

You are equivocating in a very major way --- cosmological "evolution" is not biological evolution, and in science, when we talk about the theory of evolution, it is specifically in reference to biology.

What an absolute joke for an evolutionist to whinge about equivocation! I made it clear what I meant, and it's a historical fact that Darwin made a connection between slow changes over millions of years in geology with the same principle in biology.

"Evolution" of course is also a layman term that can mean something as vague as simple change, and that is why physicists can talk about the "evolution" of a quantum mechanical system that happens on a timescale of nanoseconds involving nothing more than electons. Don't muddy the waters. Let's keep this honest, eh?

Yes, let's. So call your atheistic evolutionary cronies to account when they claim that evolution just means gene frequency over time, then use that antonynously to creation. Of course, if evolution really meant that, all the creationists on TWeb would be evolutionists too.

Socrates

June 19th 2003, 03:39 AM

06-17-2003 @ 05:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124575#post124575)
Undomiel:

From what I can tell, he didn't deny the bodily resurrection at all. Seems he was saying the exact usage of the word "physical" was where he held his disagreement. In this sense, he thought the physical body differed from the material body in that our resurrected bodies would not be subject to the decay and corruption of our physical bodies - THIS MUCH HAD CHANGED - the corruption has put on incorruption. In other words, our physical bodies were the sinful version of our flesh, our material bodies are the new, everlasting version. Just a bit of semantics and hair-splitting. I'm not sure why he even thought this subject was important to debate since you're both saying the same things in the endgame.

Zeus is to blame for any misunderstandings, not Dee Dee, Sher or JP Holding who all read him the same way. After all, the comparison was Adam brought death; Christ brough physical resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

Zeus brought up his heterodox view simply because he wanted to deny that the death Adam brought had a physical component, otherwise Genesis 3:19 is a meaningless curse:

By the sweat of your face You shall eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.

By Zeus' evolution-induced "reasoning", Adam could have replied, "So what? I was gonna return to the dust anyway."

Therefore the resurrection of Christ must have had a physical component, conquering the death Adam brought. I don't care whether anyone calls it physical or not, but do care that the Resurrection must repair the damage Adam brought with his sin.

Zeus' quibbling about the word "physical" because Paul didn't use it is fallacious. After all, cultists LOVE to point out that the word Trinity is not in the Bible. But of course, the DOCTRINE is clearly taught, and denial of this is a key mark of a cult (and Zeus should take good note because he has tossed the word around without understanding).

Calvin and Wesley agreed that physical death was part of the Curse. Calvin (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, p. 180, 1984) made the same connection with the Rez:

And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.

John Wesley even affirmed that animal death was the result of the Fall. He went even further than I would go, since insects are not nephesh chayyah. From God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872:

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …
‘It seems the insect kinds were at least one degree above the inhabitants of the waters. Almost all these too devour one another, and every other creature which they can conquer. Indeed, such is the miserably disordered state of the world at present, that innumerable creatures can no otherwise preserve their own lives than by destroying others. But in the beginning it was not so. The paradisiacal earth afforded a sufficiency of food for all its inhabitants; so that none of them had any need or temptation to prey upon the other. The spider was then as harmless as the fly, and did not then lie in wait for blood. The weakest of them crept securely over the earth, or spread their gilded wings in the air, that wavered in the breeze, and glittered in the sun, without any to make them afraid. Meantime, the reptiles of every kind were equally harmless, and more intelligent than they …
‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’

This shows that Zeus' view is a novelty, coming not from Scripture, but from imposing the anti-God view of evolution onto Scripture.

Justme

June 19th 2003, 10:18 AM

Hi,

This is a great, but confusing thread.

Concerning this evolution situation, it almost comes across as there is no such thing as evolution which of course is incorrect. Things ae evolving as we speak, have always evolved and will continue to evolve. Wasn't it only about 10 years after Darwin's first book that some theologians decided to acept that 'evolution ' was the tool of creation?

To destroy the young earth story just look at the Hawaian Islands, it is self evident that the island chain is STILL being created and that 'creation' started a very long time ago. A quick walk thru the hills of Drumheller , Alberta, Canada also show things rather clear.

If evolution isn't the way God created earth then I can not see how the book of Genesis can be correct. Evolution is the only thing that fits. The creation vs evolution argument should never have ...evolved...it is not an either/or situation.

However, evolution isn't what this thread is about, it is about the rez body.

The bible gives an example of what Jesus looks like when He returned to earth after the ascension to Heaven.

That example is on the road to Damascas when Jesus 'appeared' to Paul. I have not seen this discussed here yet.

Justme

Socrates

June 21st 2003, 02:04 AM

Yesterday @ 01:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127717#post127717)
Justme:

This is a great, but confusing thread.

The confusion is your fault because of the imprecise way you use terms. Just like Zeus, with both evolution and the sort of Rez body he believes in.

Concerning this evolution situation, it almost comes across as there is no such thing as evolution which of course is incorrect. Things ae evolving as we speak, have always evolved and will continue to evolve.

Once again, an evolutionist equivocates. No creationist denies that things are changing; rather, we deny that the changes are the sort of information-increasing changes that will turn bacteria into butterflies, bears and biologists. See The evolution train's a-comin' (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_train.asp).

Wasn't it only about 10 years after Darwin's first book that some theologians decided to acept that 'evolution ' was the tool of creation?

And this was a denial of the authority of the Bible. Look what has happened to nearly all denominations that have accepted evolution -- the next generation or two deny the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Christ.

To destroy the young earth story just look at the Hawaian Islands, it is self evident that the island chain is STILL being created and that 'creation' started a very long time ago.

And now you are equivocating about the word "creation". There is absolutely nothing in the YEC model that says that new land can't form or disintegrate.

A quick walk thru the hills of Drumheller , Alberta, Canada also show things rather clear.

No they don't -- this is your interpretation. To me, a walk through the hills would show clearly that they formed some time since the Flood about 4500 years ago. See The earth: how old does it look? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)

If evolution isn't the way God created earth then I can not see how the book of Genesis can be correct.

The opposite is true. It's hard to imagine a theory more diametrically opposed to Genesis than evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

Evolution is the only thing that fits.

Your arguments from authority and sloppy definitions of terms don't impress me.

The creation vs evolution argument should never have ...evolved...it is not an either/or situation.

It is, because Darwin used it explicitly to explain the complexity of life without God -- see Darwin’s real message: have you missed it? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1347.asp). And Zeus admires the bigoted racist anti-Christian Hume for his alleged refutation of the design argument (which Paley overcame 30 years later).

However, evolution isn't what this thread is about, it is about the rez body.

And it came from evolution, because to deny that Adam's sin brought physical death (Genesis 3:19), Zeus denied that the Last Adam brought physical resurrection from the dead. This was a logical step because Paul related the two in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

Justme

June 21st 2003, 10:26 AM

Hi Socrates

Have a look at this thread ....

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5738

Proving evolution is not one of my interests, however, I have read a bit from experts that have proved it to me. The Hawaii situation is the most obvious on the planet that I can think of.

And now you are equivocating about the word "creation". There is absolutely nothing in the YEC model that says that new land can't form or disintegrate.

Once again, an evolutionist equivocates. No creationist denies that things are changing; rather, we deny that the changes are the sort of information-increasing changes that will turn bacteria into butterflies, bears and biologists.

Who says I'm an evolutionist, whatever that may be. I consider evolution the tool with which the earth and everything on it was created.
The bible said God finished His work and rested, yet you say things can still change. Okay come back in 1,000,000 years and you will see that things are not the same as they are now...if you just want to say it changed....fine. I say evolutute!!!!!!!

I'm not going to look at any links to 'creation only' propaganda, I made up my mind on such things long ago. Evolution, or if you like 'simple change' exists, until science says different , that's what I go with and as I said, it fits in to what the bible says as well, as far as I am concerned.

Justme

Justme

June 21st 2003, 10:37 AM

Hi Socrates,

And this was a denial of the authority of the Bible. Look what has happened to nearly all denominations that have accepted evolution -- the next generation or two deny the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Christ.

The above quote was your response to this:

Wasn't it only about 10 years after Darwin's first book that some theologians decided to acept that 'evolution ' was the tool of creation?

This interests me because here you say that the 'bodily resurrection'' of Christ was denied by certain generations and nearly all denominations. Can you tell me more about that?

I think in reality there are precious few people who do not accept the theory of evolution. In the christian denominations I am familiar with nobody denies the evolution theory, but they do accept that Christ was raised from the dead.

Justme

Sher

June 21st 2003, 11:20 AM

Today @ 10:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129445#post129445)
Justme:

This interests me because here you say that the 'bodily resurrection'' of Christ was denied by certain generations and nearly all denominations. Can you tell me more about that?

Hi Justme,

It may be a nit, but you are misinterpreting what Soc said in that quote. He said, "And this was a denial of the authority of the Bible. Look what has happened to nearly all denominations that have accepted evolution -- the next generation or two deny the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Christ."

... not that "nearly all denominations [deny the bodily resurrection]"

Sher

Socrates

June 21st 2003, 12:18 PM

Today @ 01:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129441#post129441)
Justme:

Proving evolution is not one of my interests, however, I have read a bit from experts that have proved it to me.

What experts? Did they see non-living chemicals form a living cell, or even show theoretically that it could happen? Did they show that the rotary motor of the ATP synthase molecule could arise by random mutations and natural selection?

The Hawaii situation is the most obvious on the planet that I can think of.

I see the Hawaiian islands, but I don't see millions of years. That is an interpretation, and one which has already excluded the effects of catastrophic plate tectonics[/url].

Who says I'm an evolutionist, whatever that may be.

You do, at least implicitly. Similarly, if you had espoused the virtues of Marxism I'd have called you a Marxist.

I consider evolution the tool with which the earth and everything on it was created.

And your evidence for this from Scripture is, what? I'm not interested in what you consider unless you can support it from God's written Word.

The bible said God finished His work and rested, yet you say things can still change.

Of course. Because that is part of His sustaining work (Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:3). But none of these changes produce new kinds of creatures, just varieties; and no new information, just reshuffling and loss of information.

Okay come back in 1,000,000 years and you will see that things are not the same as they are now...if you just want to say it changed....fine. I say evolutute!!!!!!!

Spruik bait'n'switch terminology if you want.

I'm not going to look at any links to 'creation only' propaganda,

No, you'll just wallow in the largely atheistic propaganda of evolution.

I made up my mind on such things long ago.

Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts--my mind's already made up!" Anyway, I will put the links in for people who are actually open-minded and respect the Bible.

Evolution, or if you like 'simple change' exists,

And who actually denies "simple change"? But is this the sort of change that can goo into you. Your argument is like saying: "Cows can jump, therefore cows can jump over the moon".

... until science says different ,

Real science has nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution.

... that's what I go with and as I said, it fits in to what the bible says as well, as far as I am concerned.

And you have proven my point! Your view on the Rez is almost as shonky as your view on creation.