PDA

View Full Version : Physical or Spiritual body?



basilfo
12-12-2007, 05:08 AM
Paul restated a question that he no doubt had been asked many times in his ministry. And one that all of us have asked I'm sure:

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" (1 Cor 15:35)

I have heard many suggest physical bodies pushing up from their graves at the resurrection, but I can't find that anywhere in Scripture. I would like you hear what you folks find in Scripture as the answer. As always, thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Peace to you,
Dave

joel
12-12-2007, 05:38 AM
Dave,

I offer these thoughts as to the question;

Our physical bodies are comprised of these major components; the flesh and the correspondent organs and muscles, the blood system, the air system. These are all interconnected and depend on each other.

The physical frame houses all of the systems. We breathe air which takes in oxygen, and our blood circulates through the body taking oxygen and nutrients which we obtain from food to the organs and extrimities, and carries back the waste to be eliminated.

Blood is the major fluid component that brings life to all of the body, and carries away the waste as it is filtered and rejuvenated to run its course again.

The flesh and the bones are the major body components.
Air(oxygen) is the major ingredient in the breathing system.
Blood is major ingredient in the circulating system.

These are all an integrated system of our physical, earthly bodies.

Paul gives us a glimpse of the spiritual body. Jesus, after His resurrection, was housed in a body that differed from the body which He had before His death.

Both air and blood are necessary for the physical body to live. Deprive the body of either one and death will ensue.

The spiritual body seems to have a definite frame, but, does not seem to have either a blood system or an air system. The spiritual body is not confined to the earth.

Joel

Trumpet
12-12-2007, 07:22 AM
Hi Dave,

We won't be raised with a spiritual body either. We have the perfect example of this "new body" in the Resurrection of Jesus. He has a spiritual body that can go to the spiritual dimension, and a hard, touchable body that he can be seen and touched by humans. John said that "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 Jn. 3:2

Don

TheForgiven
12-12-2007, 07:47 AM
Paul restated a question that he no doubt had been asked many times in his ministry. And one that all of us have asked I'm sure:

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" (1 Cor 15:35)

I have heard many suggest physical bodies pushing up from their graves at the ressurection, but I can't find that anywhere in Scripture. I would like you hear what you folks find in Scripture as the answer. As always, thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Peace to you,
Dave

Hello brother Dave. I’m glad that you asked this question. You already know my current position on the resurrection, just as you are fully aware of my previous position.

To answer your question as honest as I can, let me simply say that this is a mystery to us all. However, we shouldn’t be surprised that God can raise the dead. We ourselves might ask, “How can God raise a body that’s decayed?” Consider how God made Adam from the dust of the earth, and how Eve was made from a single rib taken from Adam. What logically and scientifically would seem impossible to man, is not impossible with God.

Now none of us deny that God can do these things; we are all aware of His great and awesome powers. So the question is not if God can do these things, but if God will provide us with new bodies, or raise our current bodies. The answer is both!

To save space, let me simply piggy-back on 1 Corinthians 15:35 without quoting it.

Paul was showing the difference between the heavenly body and the earthly body. What we sow is not the body which is to be. What does he mean by that? He’s saying that our earthly image is not the same as our heavenly image. He’s not talking about “exchanging” a body, as if to say that the body we sow perishes in exchange for another body in heaven. That’s not the context of the passage, for the context is about the “Splendor” of the heavenly vs. the earthly. What Paul is in fact saying is that the splendor we sow IS NOT the splendor which is to be. What we sow is earthly, made of dust. But what will be risen is transformed into incorruption, full of glory and power.

I made the mistake in the past by trying to show that our current earthly bodies are not risen to be with the Lord, and that we have a new tent waiting for us in heaven. But I later realized my mistake on this. Paul was trying to show that the body to be is not the body we now possess, namely in splendor. What is carnal will be transformed into glory and power. What is temporary, will be transformed into eternity. Thus the saying, “What you sow is not the body to be [that is, not the splendor] but just a seed, perhaps of wheat….” A seed is planted into the ground. And when it’s fully grown, does it bear any resemblance of a seed? No friends, what was once a seed was transformed into a fully grown plant. The same with the resurrection. What you sow is the just a seed, and what rises from the earth is glorious in splendor, but no longer bears the image of a mere seed. What was small in size, was transformed into a glorious figure. But these are expressions Paul uses to explain the mystery of the Resurrection. When our bodies die, it perishes and returns to dust. But just as Adam was created from dust, so shall we also. But let’s keep something in focus here. Our bones do not decay, for we have dinosaur bones much older than the oldest man on earth….at least that’s my theory. It’s our flesh that turns into dust. But God is able to raise even from dust, anyone who has fallen asleep.

In conclusion, our bodies are risen just as the Lord’s body was risen. His body at first was of flesh, requiring all the nutrients of life. But what was risen was glorious and full of power. The entire New Testament affirms that the Lord was raised, we also will be raised as He was. He was the first born from among the dead; the first fruits. And we shall also be raised just as He was. Matthew chapter 27 spoke of a resurrection which I believe was the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. Paul’s resurrection, and the original Church, IMO, occurred in the late 60’s AD; this was the first resurrection. And there shall be a final resurrection when the 1000 years are completed; that is our hope.

May God’s love and peace be granted to you all.

Joe

basilfo
12-12-2007, 10:17 AM
Hi Dave,

We won't be raised with a spiritual body either.

Hi Don,
Thanks for the reply. Your statement is at odds with Paul what said:

1 Cor 15:37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, ...

15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [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. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

If Paul wanted his audience to know the resurrected body is NOT spiritual, IMO he did a bad job of explaining that. I think our interpretation of this very clear language is based on other notions, not the text itself. This has gotten 'us' in trouble in other areas, hasn't it? I think Paul is drawing the distinction between the inner soul (the spiritual) body and the outer shell (the physical temporary flesh/bones) body.



We have the perfect example of this "new body" in the Resurrection of Jesus.


Actually, it's not a good example. That is Jesus' body, not ours. He is God, we are not. God can and does do things we don't. His body did not decay. Not only does ours decay, but 99.9% of the bodies are completely GONE and distributed throughout creation.
Any return of these bodies, would be a RECREATION, not a RESURRECTION. ALL examples of physical resurrection in Scripture (e.g. Lazarus, and others that Jesus raised from the dead during His ministry) came from bodies that physically existed. To my knowledge, there is no reference to a recreation or re-assembling of the body - all ref's speak of raising an existing thing that has gone into 'rest' (See Dan 12).


He has a spiritual body that can go to the spiritual dimension, and a hard, touchable body that he can be seen and touched by humans.

IMO, this physical aspect of Jesus' body was required to prove to the disciples (who didn't even believe it was Him when He appeared in the room to them - they thought it was a ghost) that He in fact had risen from the dead. He certainly did not have the physical dimension (flesh/bones/blood) as he ascended nor did He when He appeared in closed rooms. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.


John said that "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 Jn. 3:2

Don

Yes John did say that. But I doubt it means we will be exactly like Him in every way. We will worship Him and He won't worship us. I don't read this to mean we will LOOK exactly like Him (have the same exact body). I think it points more to us 'getting it' rather than our physical makeup. "Like Him" as in like-minded with respect to our relationship with Him. We will finally grasp the beautiful concept and depth of His love. Right now, our feeble minds really can't comprehend it.

These are my thoughts, and I'm here to learn and hear what you have to say.

Peace to you,
Dave

basilfo
12-12-2007, 10:37 AM
Dan 12:13 "But you, go [your way] till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

I believe this instruction to Daniel helps us answer the question of the type of body (physical or spiritual) that is raised in resurrection.

If you say resurrection speaks about the physical body, you must conclude that the angel was speaking about Daniel's flesh and bones that would 'rest' and 'will arise to your inheritance' (resurrection). Really? So the 'you shall rest' was not speaking of Daniel's soul, but of his shell/body?

This means that the angel said nothing of Daniel's soul or the concious part of his being, but spoke about his flesh and bones. Where was Daniel's soul between the time of his death and the 'end of the days'?? Was it 'resting' too?

As a side note, why did Daniel's concious part (his soul) have to rest til the end of the days, but today people say believer's souls go immediately to be with the Lord?

Peace to you,
Dave

MHz
12-12-2007, 12:04 PM
As a side note, why did Daniel's concious part (his soul) have to rest til the end of the days, but today people say believer's souls go immediately to be with the Lord?

Maybe they are mistaken, 1 Thess calls the dead as being asleep. No matter how much time passes between a person's death and their resurrection they are unaware that any time has passed.

They are partly right, the breath of life does return to God, for everything that has had the breath of life, good and bad, believer and non-believer.

Ec:12:7: Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

If the good go to heaven at death then the bad go to another place. The story of the rich man (Jewish religious leader) and Lazarus has Lazarus being asleep, he isn't doing or saying anything, he is only resting in Abraham's bosom.

Even an Apostle said that he was more than anxious to get rid of this earthly body (written shortly before he did die and he was getting on in years). He didn't specifically say it would be at the moment of death. Nor did Jesus ever say anything about being 'aware' of where the spirit is when the body is in the ground. He did say He would raise it at the last day.

Joh:6:39: And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh:6:40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh:6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh:6:54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For believers the last day is at the end of the vials, "It is done."

For non-believers it is after Judgment Day,
Re:21:6: And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

basilfo
12-12-2007, 01:30 PM
Maybe they are mistaken, 1 Thess calls the dead as being asleep. No matter how much time passes between a person's death and their resurrection they are unaware that any time has passed.

I would agree with you MHz. You seem to be saying that the soul or the conscious spirit is what is either aware or unaware, not the bones and flesh. I agree. That is why I believe the angel in Dan 12 was speaking of his soul, not his phys body resting and being raised and given his inheritance at the end of the days.

For those who say the 'end of the days' or 'last days' or 'end of the age' or 'last hour' has not occured yet, they would have to say that Dan's soul is still resting. But those same people say their dear departed aunt Millie is 'at home with the Lord'. They are saying (without realizing it) that she beat Daniel to heaven. Of course, if the end of the days has already occured as the apostles and Jesus said they would, then BOTH Daniel and Aunt Millie are home. You can't have it both ways.

Consider the can of worms opened! But isn't that why we're here? Richard, if you feel we are getting off topic, please direct us to post in new threads.

Peace to you all,
Dave

Rose
12-12-2007, 03:03 PM
Excellent point Dave :thumb:


For those who say the 'end of the days' or 'last days' or 'end of the age' or 'last hour' has not occured yet, they would have to say that Dan's soul is still resting. But those same people say their dear departed aunt Millie is 'at home with the Lord'. They are saying (without realizing it) that she beat Daniel to heaven. Of course, if the end of the days has already occured as the apostles and Jesus said they would, then BOTH Daniel and Aunt Millie are home. You can't have it both ways.

Dan 12:13 "But you, go [your way] till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

If we walk through that verse step by step, it seems pretty clear what is being said. First Daniel is told that these things won't happen before the end of his life, so he will rest in death until his inheritance comes, which happens at the end of days. If we take the "end of days" to be when Jesus came, then at that time Daniel was raised from death to his inheritance, which is to be home with the Lord.

Eph. 113-14 "In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

Rose

basilfo
12-12-2007, 03:15 PM
Hello brother Dave. I’m glad that you asked this question. You already know my current position on the resurrection, just as you are fully aware of my previous position.

Hi Joseph. We have spoken about this before and I respect your thoughts which I know are genuine and are only motivated by seeking the truth. I am glad to call you brother.



.... we shouldn’t be surprised that God can raise the dead. We ourselves might ask, “How can God raise a body that’s decayed?” Consider how God made Adam from the dust of the earth, and how Eve was made from a single rib taken from Adam. What logically and scientifically would seem impossible to man, is not impossible with God.

Whether there is life after death wasn't the issue Paul was addressing in 1 Cor 15. It was what kind of body goes on after physical death. Decaying is not the issue for the vast majority of bodies. They are simply not there. The easy examples are those burnt to ash or who died at sea, and even most buried bones only last a short time before the landscape changes and the dust is blown away to be absorbed somewhere else in nature.

Bottom line, IMO, there needs to be something to resurrect - a single entity. And it cannot be the physical body because it does not exist. I can't find a single verse that describes the union of the disembodied soul (waiting for the resurrection) and a new 'super body' that comes at the resurrection.


Now none of us deny that God can do these things; we are all aware of His great and awesome powers. So the question is not if God can do these things, but if God will provide us with new bodies, or raise our current bodies. The answer is both!

We should not determine the strength of an interpretation of Scripture (in this case what body exists after death) on whether God could do it or not. It should be based on what Scripture says. For that matter, I could say that our bodies will be made of pure gold. Hey, God could do it, couldn't He? But Scripture says nothing of the kind.

In addition, what is the purpose of a physical body (even a fortified, 'glorified' one?) I believe this comes out of the futurist belief of a future earthly reign of Jesus in earthly Jerusalem (don't forget the great big chair and rod of iron in His hand) and in order to do that, believers would have to have physical bodies. I believe this to be a false interp of Scripture.

Peace to you,
Dave

MHz
12-12-2007, 03:28 PM
Hi Dave,

I should try and clarify something. I would go as far as saying that the breath of life does hold all our memories and such but nothing is learned even though that part of us is in Heaven, more like 'in storage' waiting to be united with 'dust of the earth', I don't see any requirement for a raised body to be the same dust that it had before, Jesus certainly didn't seem to have the same 'dust' being that His Apostles didn't recognize Him, but it still bore the marks of crucification in His hands and side. Jesus didn't have to use doors to enter and leave a room, let alone what else the Apostles saw in those 40 days He was on earth after His resurrection so what goes into the grave isn't the same body that comes out but every moment of life is still there for 'recall'. We would also seem to be required to go through chastisement, to a lesser degree than those at Judgment Day, but none of us are fully righteous, no matter how hard we try.

So with Daniel, his rest is until the spirit of life that belonged to only him will be united with dust from the earth, with some changes, like immortality and a new heart (knowing all the things he didn't know back then) BTW that new heart is more for people who weren't quite as faithful to God as Daniel was.

Martha certainly had some knowledge of a resurrection for her brother and Jesus didn't correct her.

Joh:11:24: Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Joh:11:25: Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Joh:11:26: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Joh:11:27: She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Martha nor Lazarus are not alive today BTW.

Job was also quite close to God, and God did correct him about some things in the latter part of his book, but there was no correction on what he saw as death (of the body) as being something that would be reversed at some point in the future. If his spirit went to heaven at the moment of death there would be no waiting.
Job:14:12: So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
Job:14:13: O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
Job:14:14: If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Job:14:15: Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
Job:14:16: For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin?
Job:14:17: My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.

I particularly like the phrase 'thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands'. Does the breath of life even have 'hands'?

basilfo
12-12-2007, 04:52 PM
Hi Dave,

So with Daniel, his rest is until the spirit of life that belonged to only him will be united with dust from the earth, with some changes, like immortality and a new heart (knowing all the things he didn't know back then)

Hi Wayne,
Can you show any Scripture that says the 'spirit of life' (I assume this is the soul) is 'reunited' with the 'dust' (I assume what is left of the physical body)?
1 Cor 15 says the body is 'spirit'. Why is 'dust' needed to make a 'spirit' body?



Martha certainly had some knowledge of a resurrection for her brother and Jesus didn't correct her.

Joh:11:24: Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Joh:11:25: Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Joh:11:26: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Joh:11:27: She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Martha nor Lazarus are not alive today BTW.

I agree. No guidance in the above concerning phys vs. spiritual body. Only that Martha had faith that Lazarus would be raised.



Job was also quite close to God, and God did correct him about some things in the latter part of his book, but there was no correction on what he saw as death (of the body) as being something that would be reversed at some point in the future. If his spirit went to heaven at the moment of death there would be no waiting.

IMO, Job was referring to being raised to life after his physical death here on earth which he could see coming. Paul's explanation of the exact issue in 1 Cor 15 is a better place to hang our interp rather than a less direct ref in Job. Just my opinion.

I agree that Job's spirit did not go to heaven at the moment of death because he died prior to the 'end of the days'. He rested just like Daniel and all the OT saints. No one could be in the presence of God when sin was only covered by animal sacrifices of the OC. That's why Jesus said 'No man has ascended to heaven.'

This shows the disconnect to be resolved over OT saints resting til 'the end of days' and New Covenant believers going directly to be with the Lord at death. How can that be?

TheForgiven
12-12-2007, 06:35 PM
You know I've often been confused about why Moses and Elijah were able to appear to Christ, apparently without bodies. Could Dave have a point? But then, if souls slept unto the end of days, how then did Moses and Elijah appear to Christ? My former theory was that only a select few were permitted to abide with God before the confirming of the New Covenant.

Jesus said of God, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob....He is not the God of the dead, but of the living..." That being said, I wonder why David was told that he was rest, and rise at the time of the end (70 AD).

Anyone's thoughts?

Joe

MHz
12-12-2007, 07:18 PM
Hi Basil,


Can you show any Scripture that says the 'spirit of life' (I assume this is the soul) is 'reunited' with the 'dust' (I assume what is left of the physical body)?
1 Cor 15 says the body is 'spirit'. Why is 'dust' needed to make a 'spirit' body?

1Th:4:14: For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Probably because a body that has had it's first birth (breath of life, whether present or absent) is needed for it to have the second birth, (spirit of God). I'm not talking about us being 'born again' I am talking about becoming like these,
M'r:12:25: For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Along with that immortal life. Man would be equal to Angels back in the beginning, we don't lose our knowledge between good and evil.

If a person would sin after the second birth (ability to see GOD face-to-face) they would take the same route as Satan went, only much faster. Re:21:7-8

The breath of life isn't a person's soul, a person is a living soul, 2 parts to each soul. Take 1 away we cease to be either living or a soul (ie having thought about God or anything else)

Ge:2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Nor were the only thing considered to be living
Ge:2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

We differ from a 'creature' in that we have knowledge of God. Angels (sons of God) differ from us in that they had knowledge of good and evil, they are stilled considered be be living (suffer a second death and go into the lake alive).




IMO, Job was referring to being raised to life after his physical death here on earth which he could see coming. Paul's explanation of the exact issue in 1 Cor 15 is a better place to hang our interp rather than a less direct ref in Job. Just my opinion.

It would seem to affirm that if Jesus didn't arise from the grave our faith is in vain because we never will either, isn't that one of promises from the whole bible, that now we live and die, but that death will be undone at some point in time and from that moment on our own eyes will see what is happening forever.
1Co:15:32: If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
This is us currently.
Jas:4:14: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.



I agree that Job's spirit did not go to heaven at the moment of death because he died prior to the 'end of the days'. He rested just like Daniel and all the OT saints. No one could be in the presence of God when sin was only covered by animal sacrifices of the OC. That's why Jesus said 'No man has ascended to heaven.'
I agree he could be one of the OT saints but if those were only from Israel then Job would not have been there, he wasn't from Israel,
Job:1:1: There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

I could only find that he feared God, nothing about sacrifice or altars, he did seem pray quite often though.



This shows the disconnect to be resolved over OT saints resting til 'the end of days' and New Covenant believers going directly to be with the Lord at death. How can that be?

Does this shed any light on the subject?
Re:6:9: And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Re:6:10: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Re:6:11: And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

What were they doing before, 'rest yet' would seem to indicate they were doing that sometime before, compared to 'crying with a loud voice' since they came to that place.
Now I'm sure heaven is a wonderful place to be, but I'm also quite sure seeing it 'from under the alter' is not the best view that we will see. Their brethren could be the two witness, and that is it. Those that 'fear God', like Job, make out better in those times. When we can do the same kinds of things (with the same wisdom) that they are said to do in their 1260 days we would be saints.
We would be saints by the time Satan surrounds the beloved city, camp of the saints is were we park-it where we do the yearly trip.

Wayne

MHz
12-12-2007, 07:37 PM
Hi Joe,

You know I've often been confused about why Moses and Elijah were able to appear to Christ, apparently without bodies. Could Dave have a point? But then, if souls slept unto the end of days, how then did Moses and Elijah appear to Christ? My former theory was that only a select few were permitted to abide with God before the confirming of the New Covenant.
I don't think you have to be actually be there if it is in a vision. What they saw should actually take place just as they saw it though, all 3 of them will be talking and Christ will look just as described.



Jesus said of God, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob....He is not the God of the dead, but of the living..." That being said, I wonder why David was told that he was rest, and rise at the time of the end (70 AD).
Anyone's thoughts?


You should be able to ask him yourself if we were past the end that is being referenced.

Joe, you posted a few verses that had 'end' in them. Do you think I could sort them into 3 different groups, each group ending with the 3 "It is done." and still use them all up, rather than all of them when "It is finished.' was said on the cross?

Wayne

basilfo
12-13-2007, 04:40 AM
You know I've often been confused about why Moses and Elijah were able to appear to Christ, apparently without bodies.

Hi Joseph,
I would think they appeared as angels appeared - without physical bodies. Remember the transfiguration to which you refer (Matt 17) occured when Christ was in human form and on earth. So M&E were not in the presence of God prior to the 'end of days'.

As soon as Peter, James and John came up with their brilliant idea of building 3 tabernacles on the site, God appeared, they did the usual fall-on-their-face thing, and 'when the smoke cleared' Moses and Elijah were gone.


It's not exactly clear, but it seems that when God appeared, they left.



Could Dave have a point? But then, if souls slept unto the end of days, how then did Moses and Elijah appear to Christ? My former theory was that only a select few were permitted to abide with God before the confirming of the New Covenant.

Perhaps. Or God pulled them from Abe's bossom for this 'mission'. Their appearing to Christ on earth does not speak to the timing of souls 'resting' until the end of days.



Jesus said of God, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob....He is not the God of the dead, but of the living..." That being said, I wonder why David was told that he was rest, and rise at the time of the end (70 AD).

Anyone's thoughts?

Joe

I think this points more to the fact that the soul lives on when the body dies. A,I,&J were still alive, just resting/waiting.

Peace to you,
Dave

basilfo
12-13-2007, 04:47 AM
Incidentally, on their way down the mountain from the transfiguration, check this out:

Matt 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11 Jesus answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

They were referring to this:

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.

Isn't Jesus giving another indication that the restoration of all things and the day of the LORD was coming soon? That it was not some far off event? He was giving them a time stamp (Elijah coming) that they were familiar with and telling them that it was not future, but fulfilled in John the Baptist.

Peace to you all,
Dave

TheForgiven
12-13-2007, 05:50 AM
Incidentally, on their way down the mountain from the transfiguration, check this out:

Matt 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11 Jesus answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

They were referring to this:

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.

Isn't Jesus giving another indication that the restoration of all things and the day of the LORD was coming soon? That it was not some far off event? He was giving them a time stamp (Elijah coming) that they were familiar with and telling them that it was not future, but fulfilled in John the Baptist.

Peace to you all,
Dave

:smiley_applause: I agree, and I've used that argument before. But for some very strange and unbiblical reason, Futurist are saying that Elijah will come in the flesh. I have absolutely no idea where they are getting this from. Furthermore, neither Christ or John in Revelation, or even anyone in the New Testament, speaks of a future Elijah coming in the flesh. Sadly, the Greek Orthodox Church teaches this; some anyways.

Jesus clearly stated that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come.

Joe

joel
12-13-2007, 06:00 AM
I agree that Job's spirit did not go to heaven at the moment of death because he died prior to the 'end of the days'. He rested just like Daniel and all the OT saints. No one could be in the presence of God when sin was only covered by animal sacrifices of the OC. That's why Jesus said 'No man has ascended to heaven.'

This shows the disconnect to be resolved over OT saints resting til 'the end of days' and New Covenant believers going directly to be with the Lord at death. How can that be?


This is a new teaching to me, Dave.

This viewpoint separates people who have died into two groups;
the Old, and the "New". These groups are separated by the event "the end of days" which you are asserting has already occurred.

Is this what you are saying?

People who die now, during this era, what happens to them when they die?

Joel

TheForgiven
12-13-2007, 01:17 PM
I think we certainly need to be VERY careful in our discussions about the resurrection and life after death.

Historically speaking, the resurrection has always been about our body. The Pharisee's agreed with the resurrection of the body, of whom Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisee's.

The Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection; they rejected anything of a resurrection.

The Christians did believe in a bodily resurrection, but were confused as to the extent, nature, and type.

Jesus set is proof of the resurrection, both in style and example.

The Gnostics later perverted the idea of a spiritual resurrection, and denied the need for the body, namely because of their refusal to repent of sins. Their abuses of the body made them feel the need for the destruction of the body so that the spirit (of light within man) can be separated from the body and live eternally with the Lord. Thus, they believed that Christ died for mankind because of our bodies inability to attain to perfect and holiness. So because of the body and its functions, the body is killed and their spirits are raised unto eternity. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Just Martyr, Oregon, and a few other early church fathers disputed with the Gnostics on this theory.

As a former Full Preterist, I had no idea I was repeating the disputes of the Gnostics, so I had to modify my belief and say that we believe in a spiritual body, but that body is in heaven, waiting for us after death. So instead of a resurrection, we have an exchanging of bodies; from earthly to heavenly.

You want to know the scary part? That too was an argument made by the Gnostics, and I posted some of their writings on of these forums.

What is the truth in all this? The resurrection is not about bursting forth from the ground, or spirits, ghosts, what ever you want to call it. The resurrection is simply that, the rising of our bodies. But what is risen IS NOT the former body, but a "transformed" body, from fleshly to spiritual.

In conclusion, the history of the Church, and even of the Jews (Pharisee) is that the body is raised / transformed into a new being. At death, the body dies and its fleshly functions ceases to exist. What will be raised is not a body of earthly characteristic's, but heavenly. And I don't believe blood and oxygen will be required. Otherwise Jesus would have bled all over the place when Thomas thrust his fingers into the wounds of Jesus.

Keep in mind, this will be a body of power and perfection, without corruption. If Grand Mother is in heaven, I don't believe she has a body, but it probably abiding in a temporary spiritual abode....at least that is my theory. And this should not be considered impossible, as Satan doesn't have a body any less than the angels do.

I believe in the bodily resurrection of everyone, whether lost or saved, and that is to come.....at the 2nd and final resurrection.

Joe

MHz
12-13-2007, 02:31 PM
I think we certainly need to be VERY careful in our discussions about the resurrection and life after death.

Historically speaking, the resurrection has always been about our body. The Pharisee's agreed with the resurrection of the body, of whom Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisee's.

The Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection; they rejected anything of a resurrection.

The Christians did believe in a bodily resurrection, but were confused as to the extent, nature, and type.

Jesus set is proof of the resurrection, both in style and example.

The Gnostics later perverted the idea of a spiritual resurrection, and denied the need for the body, namely because of their refusal to repent of sins. Their abuses of the body made them feel the need for the destruction of the body so that the spirit (of light within man) can be separated from the body and live eternally with the Lord. Thus, they believed that Christ died for mankind because of our bodies inability to attain to perfect and holiness. So because of the body and its functions, the body is killed and their spirits are raised unto eternity. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Just Martyr, Oregon, and a few other early church fathers disputed with the Gnostics on this theory.

As a former Full Preterist, I had no idea I was repeating the disputes of the Gnostics, so I had to modify my belief and say that we believe in a spiritual body, but that body is in heaven, waiting for us after death. So instead of a resurrection, we have an exchanging of bodies; from earthly to heavenly.

You want to know the scary part? That too was an argument made by the Gnostics, and I posted some of their writings on of these forums.

What is the truth in all this? The resurrection is not about bursting forth from the ground, or spirits, ghosts, what ever you want to call it. The resurrection is simply that, the rising of our bodies. But what is risen IS NOT the former body, but a "transformed" body, from fleshly to spiritual.

In conclusion, the history of the Church, and even of the Jews (Pharisee) is that the body is raised / transformed into a new being. At death, the body dies and its fleshly functions ceases to exist. What will be raised is not a body of earthly characteristic's, but heavenly. And I don't believe blood and oxygen will be required. Otherwise Jesus would have bled all over the place when Thomas thrust his fingers into the wounds of Jesus.

Keep in mind, this will be a body of power and perfection, without corruption. If Grand Mother is in heaven, I don't believe she has a body, but it probably abiding in a temporary spiritual abode....at least that is my theory. And this should not be considered impossible, as Satan doesn't have a body any less than the angels do.

I believe in the bodily resurrection of everyone, whether lost or saved, and that is to come.....at the 2nd and final resurrection.

Joe

That was quite good Joe.

joel
12-13-2007, 04:37 PM
as to the extent, nature, and type.


Thanks, Joe, for the summary.

Let's talk a bit further about...."the extent, nature, and type" of resurrection.

The word resurrection comes from a Greek word meaning...."to stand up again." Anastasis is the word which we commonly refer to as "resurrection".

There is another word, "egeiro", which is associated with the resurrection. This word means "to arouse from sleep/to arouse from the sleep of death".

Lazarus was first aroused,.....and then he was caused to stand up again.

He, however, had the same body as before. So, in his case, the resurrection did not include the change/exchange of a new body.

Paul was given a secret. It had never before been revealed that there would be a type of resurrection that would entail a completely new body. This is the only instance in which we are told that those who are blessed in that resurrection will benefit from the superior blessing of a new body. To add to the grandeur of the moment, he also specified that there would be certain ones who would be alive at that moment who would not actually enter death, but would be given a new body. We find this primarily in I Corinthians 15.

There are other resurrections which will are not exactly the same as that spoken of by Paul in chapter 15 of I Corinthians.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2007, 05:04 PM
Excellent converstation folks! :thumb:

I'm rushing around trying to catch up on all the posts since yesterday. I read over this thread, but didn't notice if anyone has mentioned that in Paul's explanation of resurrection, he said that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And he distinguished between the earthly/natural vs. the heavenly/spiritual bodies.

So where in all that do we get the idea of a physical/fleshly resurrection? It seems that Paul is saying exactly the opposite.

I understand we "get that idea" from the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus, but those look like special cases designed to prove the reality of Christ's authority over life and death. Does that mean that the "spiritual body" we get at resurrection is made up of atoms like the ones we have now? I am not aware of anything in the Bible that would demand that interpretation.

This issue is now extremely important to me because the resurrection passages are linked to the prophecies fulfilled in the first century and so I find myself quite befuddled. I am starting to realize that folks have assumed they knew what they meant when they talked about resurrection, but upon closer examination, it is clear that there is much we don't know.

For example, "resurrection" in the Bible seems to be something altogether different than transforming corpses into new and improved fleshly bodies.
On the contrary, it seems to me that our fleshly bodies are subject to corruption, which, given enought time, causes their utter annihilation. The spiritual body we receive at our resurrection is not a "reassembling" of atoms that previously composed our natural bodies. Indeed, it seems we won't even have "physical bodies" per se, but rather a supernatural body that can interact with matter "like" the physical bodies we now have, only with powers that excede anything we can now imagine.

Put simply, I am wondering if our resurrection spiritual bodies are transcendent, not "of this world" but able to intereact with it if we so choose. As Christ appeared and disappeared at will without "moving" in the ordinary sense.

On my shelf I have a book "Raised Immortal" by Murray Harris which delves into this issue in "book length" detail." Here's a snippent with some important insights:


We conclude that in its bodily aspect the Resurrection was not a resuscitation of the earthly Jesus merely to renewed physical lifeor to a phanatasmal existence. Even if the disciples could not understand the nature of Christ's new form of embodiment, they came to learn what it was not. The Resurrection marked the entrance upon a spiritual mode of existence, or, to borrow Paulin terminology, his acquisition of a "spiritual body" which was both immaterial and invisible yet capable of interaction with the world of time and space. The resurrection appearances were not successive reincarnations of Christ, as if he were oscillating between a spiritual and a physical form of existence, but were incursions into the material visible world from the spiritual, invisible world in order to convince the disciples of his identity adn reality as the resurrected one.

It would be wonderful if we could arrive at a concensus of what the Bible teaches on this very important point. And if not that, then we should strive at least to clarify where we differ, and why.

Richard

basilfo
12-13-2007, 09:26 PM
Excellent converstation folks! :thumb:

So where in all that do we get the idea of a physical/fleshly resurrection? It seems that Paul is saying exactly the opposite.

[SIZE=2]I understand we "get that idea" from the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus, but those look like special cases designed to prove the reality of Christ's authority over life and death.

You make some excellent points in your post Richard and your willingness to find truth regardless of what you previously had thought is rare and very encouraging to me.

I must confess to accepting the common teaching today of some kind of physical resurrected body with mass somehow 'coming out of the graves'. But it never sat well with me. When I actually searched carefully the Scriptures rather than nodding my head along with the crowd, I was stunned to read 1 Cor 15, which seems to me to one of the clearest passages on any matter.

44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

Rarely are we given something so cut and dried IMO. But that doesn't pigeon hole into the earthly reign, so futurists must make 'spiritual' 'NOT spiritual'. I think the physical interp of "spiritual body" comes from the false teaching of a future, physical, earthly kingdom centered in future Jerusalem. Once you mess up every NT teaching on the timing of the last days, Matt 24, Dan 2 and 7 and 9, and the first verse of Revelation, all bets are off.

I ask again, if we are to dwell with Christ - a "life-giving spirit", in the spiritual realm of heaven, why in the world do we need bodies that have mass?


Peace to you,
Dave

basilfo
12-13-2007, 09:50 PM
This is a new teaching to me, Dave.

This viewpoint separates people who have died into two groups;
the Old, and the "New". These groups are separated by the event "the end of days" which you are asserting has already occurred.

Is this what you are saying?

People who die now, during this era, what happens to them when they die?

Joel

Hi Joel,
Sorry for the vague comments. I was pointing out a problem futurists seem to have when they say that the 'end of days' is future, and at the same time say that believers today go immediately to be with the Lord. Daniel is a difficult book, for sure, but the last verse is pretty clear:

Daniel 12:13 "But you, go [your way] till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

The angel tells Daniel he would arise at the end of the days. Many places in Scripture speak of the end of days, last hour, end of the age(s), time of the end. Search on those phrases and you will find the resurrection to be at this time also. As soon as you place the end of days at the end of the planet, you conclude Daniel has not been raised yet and is still resting. So I ask why does your friend who just died get to be immediately with God, but Daniel is still waiting (2600 yrs and counting).

I take Jesus and the apostles at their word. They all taught in the inspired Word of God that the end of the age was upon them. That means soon to occur, not occur at any time. If you accept that timing, then you have to accept all the events that Scripture ties to the last days/His coming/end of the age/last hour. How do you cherry pick things out? Either you reject their timing statements (and there are dozens of them) or you accept it all.

Peace to you all,
Dave

Richard Amiel McGough
12-13-2007, 10:29 PM
You make some excellent points in your post Richard and your willingness to find truth regardless of what you previously had thought is rare and very encouraging to me.
Thanks bro! And I am very much encouraged by the conversations we are having here. The funny thing about "willingness to find truth" is that it's not a "difficult" virtue like the Golden Rule (which can be very challenging sometimes). On the contrary, the search for truth seems like the only "common sense" thing to do! What greater prize than to know the truth? What fool would desire to retain false beliefs? But I understand that folks get locked into beliefs that they were taught before they had the ability to think independently, or when they were in need of security in a group, or just because of plain old fashioned laziness! But we are blessed with our fellowship here. Though we have very strong differences, we are doing a pretty good job of searching out the truth together. Let us pray God continues to bless us with such an excellent spirit!


I must confess to accepting the common teaching today of some kind of physical resurrected body with mass somehow 'coming out of the graves'. But it never sat well with me. When I actually searched carefully the Scriptures rather than nodding my head along with the crowd, I was stunned to read 1 Cor 15, which seems to me to one of the clearest passages on any matter.

44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

Rarely are we given something so cut and dried IMO. But that doesn't pigeon hole into the earthly reign, so futurists must make 'spiritual' 'NOT spiritual'.
I have Hank Hanegraaf's "Resurrection" book where he doggedly argues for what he calls a "physical resurrection." But his book is not very helpful for an indepth discussion because he never deals with any of the tough questions, such as the relation between the body that dies and the spiritual body that is raised. He just says there is a "one to one correspondence" which is just so much bloviating because what are the options? A two to one correspondence? A one to many correspondence? I'm sorry that the "Answer Man" often obscurs his answers in a way that I do not find very edifying. Another case in point. He asserts that if there is anything "cut and dried" about that passage you quoted from 1 Cor 15, it is that Paul was NOT talking about a "spiritual body" in contrast to a "physical body" but that he was talking about a fleshly body that would be "dominated by the spirit" vs. a fleshly body that was dominated by the flesh. And when Paul says that "flesh and blood cannont inherit the kingdom of God" Hank counters that by "flesh and blood" Paul was not refering to our physical bodies, but was using a "common Jewish metaphor to express mortality."


I think the physical interp of "spiritual body" comes from the false teaching of a future, physical, earthly kingdom centered in future Jerusalem. Once you mess up every NT teaching on the timing of the last days, Matt 24, Dan 2 and 7 and 9, and the first verse of Revelation, all bets are off.

Actually, it seems to me that both the physical interpretation of spiritual body and the physical kingdom are both symptoms of an assummed and misapplied literalism that has not been clearly thought through. Even Hank, who now is a (partial?)-preterist, wrote his whole book assuming some sort of physical literalism with corpses rising from graves. I only skimmed his book, so I don't know if he answered it somewhere in a footnote, but as far as I could tell he never really stated what happened to bodies that were totally annihilated, or what if there's only a toe left? The motivating idea of "resurrection" as the rising of the same body that died is then utterly destroyed, and we see Christ's physical resurrection as a "proof" but not as a "model" that all will follow. Or what? God does not need any of the physical material of the dead corpse when He raises us and we AWAKE into His presence.


I ask again, if we are to dwell with Christ - a "life-giving spirit", in the spiritual realm of heaven, why in the world do we need bodies that have mass?

Peace to you,
Dave

That really is a good question.

Richard

MHz
12-14-2007, 03:00 AM
Hi Richard,


I'm rushing around trying to catch up on all the posts since yesterday. I read over this thread, but didn't notice if anyone has mentioned that in Paul's explanation of resurrection, he said that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And he distinguished between the earthly/natural vs. the heavenly/spiritual bodies.

So where in all that do we get the idea of a physical/fleshly resurrection? It seems that Paul is saying exactly the opposite.
Flesh is the first birth, ever since the fall, that flesh is destined to die the first death, the only one that flesh can die. Adam talked with God and had he not sinned he would be alive today. The reference to flesh is that only those who have died the first death are in need of a second birth, the ones alive are said to be caught up, changed in the twinkle of an eye. In the kingdom of God nothing dies.



I understand we "get that idea" from the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus, but those look like special cases designed to prove the reality of Christ's authority over life and death. Does that mean that the "spiritual body" we get at resurrection is made up of atoms like the ones we have now? I am not aware of anything in the Bible that would demand that interpretation.
Depends on which part of the resurrection a person is part of. Those that Christ raises at His return are like Angels, they never marry, they stay in New Jerusalem after Judgment day.
The ones who are resurrected at Judgment Day can be given in marriage and they 'live outside the city on the new earth. They are the ones who will be with the wolves and lambs, etc. The beasts of the field never enter the Holy City. But they should also have 'glorified bodies' that never die, they can have many generations follow them but the original parents are still there and always will be. Man will be their shepherd and have dominion over them again just as in Eden.
This next part is a bit involved but I'll try to do a summary. In the new earth a child is born. They are judged when they reach the age of 120, the same 120 that God gave man back in Ge:6. From the info in Isa:65 it is said that in the new earth a child will die at a hundred. (from 0 - 100 you are considered to be a child (with perfect parents and being aware of both God and Christ), 20 years later they come before God and when they are found to be (not a sinner) they go on to live forever. Since there is still Law in the New Earth there are things considered to be a sin. (not that any will fall into sin). The age of accountability is 20 years, same as in the OT when at that age they could go to war. If there was a person who sinned at 20 and was still sinning 100 years later (120 total) they would be sent to the lake rather than go on to become an 'old man' (a title not a condition of the body, more like having much wisdom)



This issue is now extremely important to me because the resurrection passages are linked to the prophecies fulfilled in the first century and so I find myself quite befuddled. I am starting to realize that folks have assumed they knew what they meant when they talked about resurrection, but upon closer examination, it is clear that there is much we don't know.

&0n AD was the end for some things prophetic, like the 70 weeks. It doesn't qualify as being 'the end' of all prophecy.

Da:9:26:
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself:
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;
and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

70AD ended in the 3rd line, sanctuary destroyed, the end is till after that, first Christ's SC and the very last 'war' is when God sends fire down from heaven to destroy Satan and any fallen angels not already in the lake.



For example, "resurrection" in the Bible seems to be something altogether different than transforming corpses into new and improved fleshly bodies.
On the contrary, it seems to me that our fleshly bodies are subject to corruption, which, given enought time, causes their utter annihilation. The spiritual body we receive at our resurrection is not a "reassembling" of atoms that previously composed our natural bodies. Indeed, it seems we won't even have "physical bodies" per se, but rather a supernatural body that can interact with matter "like" the physical bodies we now have, only with powers that excede anything we can now imagine.
Does twinkle of an eye apply to a person who is resurrected, it could be that a person comes back just the same as before they went to the grave, if you were lame you come back still lame and then you are made whole. It's like bringing them back to the same condition the living that are gathered, each with at least one minor imperfection, and then the change takes place, the writing on the heart etc.



Put simply, I am wondering if our resurrection spiritual bodies are transcendent, not "of this world" but able to intereact with it if we so choose. As Christ appeared and disappeared at will without "moving" in the ordinary sense.
Maybe we will even be able to tell a mountain to move and it will move




It would be wonderful if we could arrive at a concensus of what the Bible teaches on this very important point. And if not that, then we should strive at least to clarify where we differ, and why.

The conversation are probably just getting started


Wayne

basilfo
12-14-2007, 05:40 AM
Hi Richard,

The reference to flesh is that only those who have died the first death are in need of a second birth, the ones alive are said to be caught up, changed in the twinkle of an eye.
Hi Wayne,
Thanks for your thoughts and please understand my replies are solely intended to determine which of our views best fits the entirety of Scripture. And I know yours do the same, and so we have a great discussion in front of us.

I respectfully disagree that this is what 'the ref to flesh' is talking about here. Without debating 'caught up' here (what it is and when it is), IMO the 'ref to flesh' Paul is speaking about is simply the type body we start with and the type body we have after death. Remember the context:

"How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come? ......
And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be"

He's explaining a contrast between what we have now and what we will have.


Depends on which part of the resurrection a person is part of. Those that Christ raises at His return are like Angels, they never marry, they stay in New Jerusalem after Judgment day.

Yikes! I don't see Paul teaching about different types of bodies in life after death at all. What Scripture leads you to that distinction?



The ones who are resurrected at Judgment Day can be given in marriage and they 'live outside the city on the new earth. They are the ones who will be with the wolves and lambs, etc. The beasts of the field never enter the Holy City. But they should also have 'glorified bodies' that never die, they can have many generations follow them but the original parents are still there and always will be. Man will be their shepherd and have dominion over them again just as in Eden.

I'm sorry brother, but if you are saying that animals will get 'glorified bodies' at any time, anywhere, you lost me. And this animal population just grows unbounded with none dying? I would need chapter and verse for that one. As Roy Schieder said in Jaws: "We're gonna need a bigger boat."



This next part is a bit involved but I'll try to do a summary. In the new earth a child is born. They are judged when they reach the age of 120, the same 120 that God gave man back in Ge:6. From the info in Isa:65 it is said that in the new earth a child will die at a hundred. (from 0 - 100 you are considered to be a child (with perfect parents and being aware of both God and Christ), 20 years later they come before God and when they are found to be (not a sinner) they go on to live forever. Since there is still Law in the New Earth there are things considered to be a sin. (not that any will fall into sin). The age of accountability is 20 years, same as in the OT when at that age they could go to war. If there was a person who sinned at 20 and was still sinning 100 years later (120 total) they would be sent to the lake rather than go on to become an 'old man' (a title not a condition of the body, more like having much wisdom)

Wayne, Isaiah 65 does not give life expectancies in the new heaven and earth. And there is no 20 yr waiting period stated anywhere in Scripture. I would encourage you to read it again.

I take it 'the New Earth' you refer to above comes from here:

Rev 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

You talk about sinning here, but this new heaven and earth come after the judgment and after Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is [the Book] of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

This is usually where futurists say sin ends. Yet you have it continuing.

Think on these things Wayne. I look forward to your reply. I'll continue the rest separately.
Peace to you,
Dave

joel
12-14-2007, 05:47 AM
Paul added in his letter to the Philippians a brief insight to the resurrection which we, the members of His body, will experience;

3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

The citizenship of the body of Christ is in heaven, not the earth. That is where we originate, and from where our Saviour will come for us.

He will cause a change to occur as to our bodies. We will be "jointly" conformed to His glorious body. This means that it will happen at the same time; i.e. it will a "joint" event, and not an individual event happening to one at one time, and to another at another time. It will occur to all members of His body at the same time.

When He came to earth to assume His role as the Saviour for our sins, He was housed in a human body, but it was only so on the outward basis. Inwardly, He was not subject to death, as are we, nor, was He subject to sin, as are we. He had to become sin for us, and be willing to enter into death, for us.

He was not mortal, nor was He housed in a corruptible body. We, as we remain in the flesh, are mortal and we are housed in a corruptible body as it is decaying moment by moment (a fact of life that becomes more apparent the older we become....sigh!!!)

The spiritual body in which we will be housed will be both immortal, and incorruptible.

There seems to be a distinction made in scripture between "flesh and blood", and "flesh and bones". As Richard pointed, the first cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

But Adam described Eve as being "flesh of my flesh,....and bone of my bones".
This, in my opinion, put her in a special category.

Joel

basilfo
12-14-2007, 05:55 AM
70 AD was the end for some things prophetic, like the 70 weeks. It doesn't qualify as being 'the end' of all prophecy.

Boy Wayne, you don't pick the easy passages to discuss do you??! Dan 9:24-27 could fill up 20 pages of posts alone. I'll focus on what you said about the 70 weeks not being the end of all prophecy. Actually, it was!

Dan 9:24 " Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

That means no more visions or prophesies could be given after the 70 weeks. If you hear someone 'prophesying' today, they need to explain how Dan 9:24 doesn't apply to them. That the Word of God is a good start, but they have been given additional revelation/vision/prophesy from God. Nothing is to be added or taken away from the Word of God.

Gotta run. Peace to you all,
Dave

TheForgiven
12-14-2007, 06:12 AM
I'm rushing around trying to catch up on all the posts since yesterday. I read over this thread, but didn't notice if anyone has mentioned that in Paul's explanation of resurrection, he said that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And he distinguished between the earthly/natural vs. the heavenly/spiritual bodies.

Hello brother Richard. I agree with this verse, and I don't think that anyone does not agree. We abide on this earth as "flesh and blood" but what is raised is no longer "flesh and blood" but has become spiritual. The splender is changed.

Now lets assume the rapture has merit. Paul stated that there would be those who did not die, but in the twinkling of an eye, they would be changed. Now considering we Preterist must assume that "a" resurrection of some type took place in the first century, and lets also assume that the resurrection is merely the separation of our souls from our earthly bodies, wouldn't there have been a great deal of dead bodies on the ground, that were not killed by war or famine? I'm pretty certain this would have been well documented, if not at least scaring the wits out of the witnesses.

Our bodies at the resurrection, whether bone or dust, are transformed from what was once flesh into the glorius splendor, which obviously does not consist of flesh and blood. Jesus was raised and His body was transformed from carnal to spiritual. Yet the previous body did not remain in the tomb. In the same way, the resurrection in Matthew 27 specifically states that tombs broke open and the bodies of those who had fallen asleep came to life and appeared to many throughout Jerusalem. This is also testified by the letter from Pontius Pilot to Caesar, who describes the very same magnificant event.

Finally, if our bodies serve no purpose except to merely die and return to dust, then that leaves everyone with a question, "Why are we born with earthly bodies of they return to dust?" My answer is because we were planted on this earth to become a fruit life giving heavenly being. Our bodies are not the cause of sin, but because of learned habits we became sinful. Christ came to turn those things around and retrain our mind and lives, and through Him, we might obtain to His likeness and Holiness.


So where in all that do we get the idea of a physical/fleshly resurrection? It seems that Paul is saying exactly the opposite.

In a way, I agree, but he wasn't refuting the resurrection of our bodies, but that our bodies are transformed from "flesh and blood" to the spiritual abode.


I understand we "get that idea" from the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus, but those look like special cases designed to prove the reality of Christ's authority over life and death. Does that mean that the "spiritual body" we get at resurrection is made up of atoms like the ones we have now? I am not aware of anything in the Bible that would demand that interpretation.

The only point I'd say about Lazarus is that his body was decomposing, and rotting away, yet God restored his body like new. He took what wasn't there (what was decaying) and restored it. The same with the resurrection, but in a different sense. Lazarus was raised to be flesh and blood again, but the true resurrection is raised to be spiritual; that is, a spiritual body.


This issue is now extremely important to me because the resurrection passages are linked to the prophecies fulfilled in the first century and so I find myself quite befuddled. I am starting to realize that folks have assumed they knew what they meant when they talked about resurrection, but upon closer examination, it is clear that there is much we don't know.

I agree as it's quite obvious through the writings of the New Testament and that of the early fathers, that confusion existed about the resurrection. It was Sadducee's and the Gnostics which caused so many problems. Keep also in mind that it was primarily Gentiles that had issues of the resurrection; many of them simply did not believe in the full resurrection of the body. They believe in an after-life of some sort, but nothing of the body. That's why they burned their bodies after death.


For example, "resurrection" in the Bible seems to be something altogether different than transforming corpses into new and improved fleshly bodies.
On the contrary, it seems to me that our fleshly bodies are subject to corruption, which, given enought time, causes their utter annihilation. The spiritual body we receive at our resurrection is not a "reassembling" of atoms that previously composed our natural bodies. Indeed, it seems we won't even have "physical bodies" per se, but rather a supernatural body that can interact with matter "like" the physical bodies we now have, only with powers that excede anything we can now imagine.

Again I agree, that the resurrection is not the restoration of our atoms, but none the less, the body is still raised, just as Jesus was raised.


Put simply, I am wondering if our resurrection spiritual bodies are transcendent, not "of this world" but able to intereact with it if we so choose. As Christ appeared and disappeared at will without "moving" in the ordinary sense.

That is one of the greatest mysteries that actually has me looking forward to death. I know that sounds rediculous, but I very much want to know, like Paul, the power of the resurrection of Jesus and the life after.

Joe

joel
12-14-2007, 07:44 AM
When we study Paul's letters, and compare the various aspects of spiritual truth which he presents, he uses specific words to convey specific ideas and meanings (which is obviously true of the study of all scripture).

Many of the words that he uses cannot be easily translated by English words so we have to use combinations of English words to get the meaning of single Greek words.

A good example of this is the family of words that have a certain prefix such as "sun", "sug"......which we would have to use multiple words to translate.

Such a word would be "sunmorphos". This word is used by Paul when he describes the event of getting a new body when Christ returns (Philippians 3:20,21). The prefix "sun" means that we will receive the body "together with" each other. A good English word for the "sun" prefix would be "joint".

This English word, "joint", has a distinct meaning. When you receive something jointly with someone else you receive it at the same time with everyone else with whom you have the joint relationship. It has to be at the exact same moment, otherwise it would not be jointly received.

Not only is it received at the same moment, but, it is in the exact same proportion. This is another feature of joint ownership, or joint receivership.

The event described by Paul in Philippians 3:20,21 is a future event. It has not occurred. Otherwise, it would not be a joint event and the word "sunmorphos" should not have been used.

Joel

kathryn
12-14-2007, 08:28 AM
Excellent point Joel! I have never seen that connection before!

Richard Amiel McGough
12-14-2007, 08:47 AM
Boy Wayne, you don't pick the easy passages to discuss do you??! Dan 9:24-27 could fill up 20 pages of posts alone. I'll focus on what you said about the 70 weeks not being the end of all prophecy. Actually, it was!

Dan 9:24 " Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

That means no more visions or prophesies could be given after the 70 weeks. If you hear someone 'prophesying' today, they need to explain how Dan 9:24 doesn't apply to them. That the Word of God is a good start, but they have been given additional revelation/vision/prophesy from God. Nothing is to be added or taken away from the Word of God.

Gotta run. Peace to you all,
Dave
In my article on Daniel's Seventy Weeks (http://www.biblewheel.com/History/Daniel_70_Weeks.asp) I listed a few Scritpures that show how Christ fulfilled the things listed in Dan 9:24:

Prophecy in Daniel: to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins,
Fulfillment in Christ: Hebrews 9:25-26 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Prophecy in Daniel: and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
Fulfillment in Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Prophecy in Daniel: and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
Fulfillment in Christ: Romans 3:21-22 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Prophecy in Daniel: and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
Fulfillment in Christ: Revelation 22:18-20 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.But I must admit that the last one is ambiguous in my mind. If we take the completion of the Bible as the fulfillment of "to seal up the vision and the prophecy" then that wasn't finished until Rev was written, which I take as about 66 AD, and others take as late as 95 AD. Its also different than the others which were all fulfilled by Christ in His earthly ministration in the 70th week.

This is part of the strong tension between the fulfillment of the 70th week in the work of Christ in 30 AD and the outworking of that fulfillment in 70 AD. The bottom line is that I agree with Dave that it all ended by 70 AD, but I am stuck with some ambiguity between its fulfillment in the 70th week (27-33 AD) and its final outworking that was fully manifest in 70 AD.

One solution is to understand the idea of "to seal up the vision and the prophecy" as a more generalized "capping off" of everything triggered in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ that was constrained to the 70th week, though the outworkings from that were not. This understanding should not be lightly dismissed, because it very well could be that the way things really happened in history required a little ambiguity in order to be prophetically described in the beautiful and simple pattern of 70 x 7. It certainly would not be the first time we see this in the Bible.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-14-2007, 09:19 AM
Good morning brother Joe! :yo:

Hello brother Richard. I agree with this verse, and I don't think that anyone does not agree. We abide on this earth as "flesh and blood" but what is raised is no longer "flesh and blood" but has become spiritual. The splender is changed.

Are you equivocating between "flesh and blood" and "flesh and bones" or are you saying the risen body is not properly called "flesh" at all?


Now lets assume the rapture has merit. Paul stated that there would be those who did not die, but in the twinkling of an eye, they would be changed. Now considering we Preterist must assume that "a" resurrection of some type took place in the first century, and lets also assume that the resurrection is merely the separation of our souls from our earthly bodies, wouldn't there have been a great deal of dead bodies on the ground, that were not killed by war or famine? I'm pretty certain this would have been well documented, if not at least scaring the wits out of the witnesses.

That certainly is not a senario I would consider at all .... but for the sake of argument.


Our bodies at the resurrection, whether bone or dust, are transformed from what was once flesh into the glorius splendor, which obviously does not consist of flesh and blood.

Excellent - you have stated the "sticky point." If my body has been utterly annihilated, then there is nothing left to be "transformed from what was once flesh into the glorius splendor." This is a central issue that I hope we can clarify. The idea of a literal resurrection of a dead body (meaning a transformation such that the dead body disappears and a new deathless spiritual body appears in its place) requires that there be a dead body! But such is not the case in general. Therefore, the idea of a literal resurrection seems to apply only to special cases when Christ was proving the reality of the resurrection. In general, there can not be a "resurrection" in this literal sense. It appears that God merely creates a new spiritual body to house the "soul" or "spirit" that inhabited the previous house of flesh and blood. But this description has its own attendant problems, because the definition of a soul in Gen 2:7 appears to be the union of a body of dust and a spirit of life from God.


Jesus was raised and His body was transformed from carnal to spiritual. Yet the previous body did not remain in the tomb. In the same way, the resurrection in Matthew 27 specifically states that tombs broke open and the bodies of those who had fallen asleep came to life and appeared to many throughout Jerusalem. This is also testified by the letter from Pontius Pilot to Caesar, who describes the very same magnificant event.

Again, the opening of the graves in Matt 27 appears to be a necessary part of the demonstration of Christ's victory over death. Otherwise, how would anyone know what had happened? I think those resurrections, like Lazarus', were literal physical resurrections of bodies of flesh and blood. They were demonstrative only.


Finally, if our bodies serve no purpose except to merely die and return to dust, then that leaves everyone with a question, "Why are we born with earthly bodies of they return to dust?" My answer is because we were planted on this earth to become a fruit life giving heavenly being. Our bodies are not the cause of sin, but because of learned habits we became sinful. Christ came to turn those things around and retrain our mind and lives, and through Him, we might obtain to His likeness and Holiness.

Yes ... and I think that its almost like a concrete form for the soul. Our spirit is "poured into" these physical bodies and take on form from them. When we the physical body dies, the form remains. This echoes in my mind with the purpose of the law as leading us to Christ. The constriction of the law imposed form on us. Without it we would have been wild, formless and void of the knowledge necessary to understand and receive Christ.



So where in all that do we get the idea of a physical/fleshly resurrection? It seems that Paul is saying exactly the opposite.
In a way, I agree, but he wasn't refuting the resurrection of our bodies, but that our bodies are transformed from "flesh and blood" to the spiritual abode.

Sure ... so long as there is a body there to be transformed. But on second thought, the idea of a physical body being transformed seems incorrect, since its not the general case. The best solution seems to be a supernatural destruction of the old body if it still existed followed by or simultaneous with the creation of a new spiritual body. The final effect is the same, but the language now accomodates the reality of the general case.


The only point I'd say about Lazarus is that his body was decomposing, and rotting away, yet God restored his body like new. He took what wasn't there (what was decaying) and restored it. The same with the resurrection, but in a different sense. Lazarus was raised to be flesh and blood again, but the true resurrection is raised to be spiritual; that is, a spiritual body.

Agree. But in the general case, there is nothing there to "restore" since the phyisical body was utterly annihilated. It seems clarity comes only if we focus on the soul of the deceased as getting a new house, as opposed to fucussing on the old house being replaced.


I agree as it's quite obvious through the writings of the New Testament and that of the early fathers, that confusion existed about the resurrection. It was Sadducee's and the Gnostics which caused so many problems. Keep also in mind that it was primarily Gentiles that had issues of the resurrection; many of them simply did not believe in the full resurrection of the body. They believe in an after-life of some sort, but nothing of the body. That's why they burned their bodies after death.

I understand the problem of the Gnostics, but we must not let heretics and pagans define the truth for us. What I mean is, we can not reject the truth just because some heretical group happened to be correct on that point.


Again I agree, that the resurrection is not the restoration of our atoms, but none the less, the body is still raised, just as Jesus was raised.

That doesn't make any sense to me. The body of Jesus could be raised because it still existed. What does it mean to "raise" a non-existent body?


That is one of the greatest mysteries that actually has me looking forward to death. I know that sounds rediculous, but I very much want to know, like Paul, the power of the resurrection of Jesus and the life after.

Joe
It certainly doesn't sound ridiculous to me!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-14-2007, 09:40 AM
When we study Paul's letters, and compare the various aspects of spiritual truth which he presents, he uses specific words to convey specific ideas and meanings (which is obviously true of the study of all scripture).

Many of the words that he uses cannot be easily translated by English words so we have to use combinations of English words to get the meaning of single Greek words.

A good example of this is the family of words that have a certain prefix such as "sun", "sug"......which we would have to use multiple words to translate.

Such a word would be "sunmorphos". This word is used by Paul when he describes the event of getting a new body when Christ returns (Philippians 3:20,21). The prefix "sun" means that we will receive the body "together with" each other. A good English word for the "sun" prefix would be "joint".

This English word, "joint", has a distinct meaning. When you receive something jointly with someone else you receive it at the same time with everyone else with whom you have the joint relationship. It has to be at the exact same moment, otherwise it would not be jointly received.

Not only is it received at the same moment, but, it is in the exact same proportion. This is another feature of joint ownership, or joint receivership.

The event described by Paul in Philippians 3:20,21 is a future event. It has not occurred. Otherwise, it would not be a joint event and the word "sunmorphos" should not have been used.

Joel
Hey there brother Joel! :yo:


Fascinating insight. Let's dig in deeper ...
Philippians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto [summorphos] his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
The "sum" in "summorphos" is talking about the "sameness" of our form (morph) with that of Christ when we are glorified. I don't see it as refering to the "togetherness" we might have with each other when we get our glorified bodies. If that were the case, then that one prefix would be doing a double duty - first it would indicate the "togetherness" of our future form with that of Christ's (which I believe to be the correct interpretation), and second it would indicate our "togetherenss" when that event occurs. I don't see any justification for assuming that the prefix has two meanings.

Is there anything in the passage that precludes each individual being individually "fashioned like unto" (summorphos) the glorious body of Christ at the time of their death?


It is interesting that this same word appears in the Golden Chain of Redemption:
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed [summorphos] to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-14-2007, 10:02 AM
Good moring brother Wayne! :yo:

Hi Richard,

So where in all that do we get the idea of a physical/fleshly resurrection? It seems that Paul is saying exactly the opposite.
Flesh is the first birth, ever since the fall, that flesh is destined to die the first death, the only one that flesh can die. Adam talked with God and had he not sinned he would be alive today. The reference to flesh is that only those who have died the first death are in need of a second birth, the ones alive are said to be caught up, changed in the twinkle of an eye. In the kingdom of God nothing dies.

Agreed. So you don't see the resurrected body as "flesh"?



I understand we "get that idea" from the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus, but those look like special cases designed to prove the reality of Christ's authority over life and death. Does that mean that the "spiritual body" we get at resurrection is made up of atoms like the ones we have now? I am not aware of anything in the Bible that would demand that interpretation.
Depends on which part of the resurrection a person is part of. Those that Christ raises at His return are like Angels, they never marry, they stay in New Jerusalem after Judgment day.
Ah ... so you persist in the idea that the NJ is not the Church? Did you ever post an explanation of you view on this? I ask, because the identity of the Church as the NJ seems to be explicit in Rev 21:9. Could you please refresh my memory on this?

I find it facinating how every aspect of theology affects every other aspect. Make one wrong assumption, and it cascades down through your entire interpretation of the whole Bible.


The ones who are resurrected at Judgment Day can be given in marriage and they 'live outside the city on the new earth. They are the ones who will be with the wolves and lambs, etc. The beasts of the field never enter the Holy City. But they should also have 'glorified bodies' that never die, they can have many generations follow them but the original parents are still there and always will be. Man will be their shepherd and have dominion over them again just as in Eden.
I find that description somewhat mystifying my friend! You seem to be freely mixing literalisms with symbols, so I don't know which is which. The "wold and lambs" are symbols of certain kinds of people, correct? But the NJ is a literal city in a literal new earth? And there are literal sinners "outside the city" even after all the sinners were tossed in the lake of fire?


This next part is a bit involved but I'll try to do a summary. In the new earth a child is born. They are judged when they reach the age of 120, the same 120 that God gave man back in Ge:6. From the info in Isa:65 it is said that in the new earth a child will die at a hundred. (from 0 - 100 you are considered to be a child (with perfect parents and being aware of both God and Christ), 20 years later they come before God and when they are found to be (not a sinner) they go on to live forever. Since there is still Law in the New Earth there are things considered to be a sin. (not that any will fall into sin). The age of accountability is 20 years, same as in the OT when at that age they could go to war. If there was a person who sinned at 20 and was still sinning 100 years later (120 total) they would be sent to the lake rather than go on to become an 'old man' (a title not a condition of the body, more like having much wisdom)

The problem with that whole scenario is that it seems to be a private interpretation built upon ambiguous verses. What I mean is, there is no proof of your theories here, and I am pretty sure that it would be very rare to find anyone who agreed with all or even most of what you say on all those points. This is to be compared with the proper interepretation of Scripture which is based on hard facts that God established in the Bible for our edification. We must not assert things that we do not really know. And I am pretty sure you do not really know any of that stuff because it is based on many assumptions that you can not prove. So again, we find ourselves looking for the foundation of our biblical knowledge.


70 AD was the end for some things prophetic, like the 70 weeks. It doesn't qualify as being 'the end' of all prophecy.

Da:9:26:
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself:
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;
and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

70AD ended in the 3rd line, sanctuary destroyed, the end is till after that, first Christ's SC and the very last 'war' is when God sends fire down from heaven to destroy Satan and any fallen angels not already in the lake.

I don't see any justification for inventing and inserting a 1937+ year gap after the "3rd line" - especially since the last two lines fit perfectly with what happened in 70 AD and Daniel ends with a declaration that everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered in 70 AD.


Maybe we will even be able to tell a mountain to move and it will move

Yep! Something like that anyway.


The conversation are probably just getting started

No truer words have ever been spoken! I'm glad you are here to help Wayne.

Richard

TheForgiven
12-14-2007, 10:47 AM
Excellent - you have stated the "sticky point." If my body has been utterly annihilated, then there is nothing left to be "transformed from what was once flesh into the glorious splendor." This is a central issue that I hope we can clarify. The idea of a literal resurrection of a dead body (meaning a transformation such that the dead body disappears and a new deathless spiritual body appears in its place) requires that there be a dead body! But such is not the case in general. Therefore, the idea of a literal resurrection seems to apply only to special cases when Christ was proving the reality of the resurrection. In general, there can not be a "resurrection" in this literal sense. It appears that God merely creates a new spiritual body to house the "soul" or "spirit" that inhabited the previous house of flesh and blood. But this description has its own attendant problems, because the definition of a soul in Gen 2:7 appears to be the union of a body of dust and a spirit of life from God.

That has always been my point. What was dead and perished turns into dust. But what is raised is new and glorious. Now lets assume that the bodies we bare now have no purpose in the resurrection, then why the tombs breaking open? My only concern in all of this is that Christ, after being raised (The First fruits of those who have fallen asleep) and His tomb was empty afterwards, shall we not do the very same? The New Testament is clear that Christ was raised, so that we, having been justified through faith in the resurrection, shall share in the same hope. I say this because Christ is the express image and style of the resurrection, and ours shall be like his. Even if his body decayed, though scripture affirms that it wouldn't, He still would have been raised.

Now I understand scientifically that a body fully decayed into dust has nothing to raise. But then why did the early Church leave their bodies in underground catacombs? They did this knowing that the resurrection consisted of their risen bodies. Otherwise, the early Church practiced something not required. They may as well practiced what the Gentile's did; cremation.

Therefore, if we're to believe that the early Church believed in the raising of our bodies, as proven by the catacombs all throughout the city of Corinthian, then should we not also possess the same hope?

Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp (a well known man and Martyr of Jesus) all testified that our bodies will be raised. I can't believe that Polycarp, Clement, or Ignatius were in error regarding our bodily resurrection. And to be clear, the transformation process is not from flesh TO flesh, but from flesh to the heavenly attributes.

But brother Richard, I'll be the first to admit that this mystery is indeed fascinating and difficult to explain, and I myself want to see this; not so I can believe in it, but because I do believe in it. I look forward to the day of my rebirth.

Joe

basilfo
12-14-2007, 03:35 PM
This is part of the strong tension between the fulfillment of the 70th week in the work of Christ in 30 AD and the outworking of that fulfillment in 70 AD. The bottom line is that I agree with Dave that it all ended by 70 AD, but I am stuck with some ambiguity between its fulfillment in the 70th week (27-33 AD) and its final outworking that was fully manifest in 70 AD.

I agree Richard. The tension comes for me by seeing no gap given in the 70 weeks prophesy, with seemingly the cross and some fulfillments coming with the destruction of the temple and that judgment both coming in the 70th week (7 yrs long) but 40 yrs between the events. At least the cross and judgment of Jerusalem come after the 69th week, but approx 40 yrs apart.

It's a tough one. BTW, making the 2 events over 2000 yrs apart doesn't help.

MHz
12-14-2007, 06:11 PM
Hi Richard,


Agreed. So you don't see the resurrected body as "flesh"?
Discounting just the ones that are alive at His SC, if you have had a flesh body (1st birth) you will have a 2nd birth, one that begins when you can walk and talk with Christ (that being the very first, many more after that). Since He is the Master it will be Him that speaks first. Like 'Come up here out of your sleep'



Ah ... so you persist in the idea that the NJ is not the Church? Did you ever post an explanation of you view on this? I ask, because the identity of the Church as the NJ seems to be explicit in Rev 21:9. Could you please refresh my memory on this?
It was in that thread that both you and Rose were in where we went through some 'chaff verses' about Miriam being John's disciple, if that doesn't help I can find it again.



I find it facinating how every aspect of theology affects every other aspect. Make one wrong assumption, and it cascades down through your entire interpretation of the whole Bible.
There you go, find a correct answer (that is against what most believe) to one issue that has meaning an you might start running into more answers than there are questions. Like the 70 being past and therefore no 7 year trib, only a 3 1/2 year one that is still not here. Just think of just the authors that have $books out that would have to say Whoops, blew it there, sorry. (not that it actually changed anything, just more arguments and another stumbling stone to go around). All I have to do is say, Hey neat, another verse that has just fallen into place and then I tell somebody about it.



I find that description somewhat mystifying my friend! You seem to be freely mixing literalisms with symbols, so I don't know which is which. The "wold and lambs" are symbols of certain kinds of people, correct? But the NJ is a literal city in a literal new earth? And there are literal sinners "outside the city" even after all the sinners were tossed in the lake of fire?
Isa:65:25:
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock:
and dust shall be the serpent's meat.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,
saith the LORD.

Isa:11:6:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
Isa:11:7:
And the cow and the bear shall feed;
their young ones shall lie down together:
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa:11:8:
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

The reason the above is for the new earth is because other verses say for the ones alive after Christ's that they never marry. Since they are Priests and Kings, the who they are priests to and Kings over are those who are raised later, at the GWT in Heaven and they then descend (everybody in the City) onto the new earth and the people who were 'the rest' follow the living water to wherever it goes, they become more numerous the further the waters flow.

If that 'creates a 'room problem' I'm quite sure God has a solution that is better than 'leaving some/most behind' for that reason. Those 'suckling and weaned children' start their eternal life after 120 years (probably marked by a very big celebration at regular intervals. That gives then about 100 years of being taught about 'how to act'. God's promise to them is that they won't fall,
Isa:65:24:
And it shall come to pass,
that before they call,
I will answer;
and while they are yet speaking,
I will hear.



The problem with that whole scenario is that it seems to be a private interpretation built upon ambiguous verses. What I mean is, there is no proof of your theories here, and I am pretty sure that it would be very rare to find anyone who agreed with all or even most of what you say on all those points. This is to be compared with the proper interepretation of Scripture which is based on hard facts that God established in the Bible for our edification. We must not assert things that we do not really know. And I am pretty sure you do not really know any of that stuff because it is based on many assumptions that you can not prove. So again, we find ourselves looking for the foundation of our biblical knowledge.


It's based on that God would make salvation a level playing field for everybody, the little ups and downs of the first life are not what keeps you after sins have been forgiven. One death then judgment, perfect justice is not having somebody 20 and somebody 90 facing the same fate based on those years. Scripture already says the Gospel will be preached to the dead so they can be judged equally to the living. If God gave everybody 120 years most do not make it there, is that time lost or do they 'get to hear the Gospel' while in the grave for 100 years or 30 years before it is determined that they belong in the lake or not.
It's another one of those that don't have enough verses to prove or disprove. If you have some I assume it would have been posted.



I don't see any justification for inventing and inserting a 1937+ year gap after the "3rd line" - especially since the last two lines fit perfectly with what happened in 70 AD and Daniel ends with a declaration that everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered in 70 AD.
Just what verse is that anyway?
Yet you justify a 40 year gap between between cut-off and when the temple and city are trashed to the ground, then time screeches to a halt, forever. I don't see it like that, there is a 40 year gap between two important events, there is another gap until the next event, flood would be associated with Christ's SC and the final end is the end of the war against death (the last enemy to be defeated in that death holds no-one, everybody has been accounted for).



Yep! Something like that anyway. A blessed hope should any find themselves in this position,
Ge:2:5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Here's a catch up thought to an earlier question I read somewhere why would a person need 'a body' after the last resurrection is complete. How are the people outside the city supposed to build houses and live in them forever if they have spiritual hands.

Later bro

Wayne

Richard Amiel McGough
12-14-2007, 07:22 PM
Hi Richard,

Discounting just the ones that are alive at His SC, if you have had a flesh body (1st birth) you will have a 2nd birth, one that begins when you can walk and talk with Christ (that being the very first, many more after that). Since He is the Master it will be Him that speaks first. Like 'Come up here out of your sleep'

A "second birth" that begins "when you can walk and talk with Christ" and "many more after that?" I know not of what ye speak.


There you go, find a correct answer (that is against what most believe) to one issue that has meaning an you might start running into more answers than there are questions.

Yes indeed! That is precisely what happened as I began to study the first century fulfillment of the Dan-Rev-OD prophetic complex.


Like the 70 being past and therefore no 7 year trib, only a 3 1/2 year one that is still not here.

Oh it happened all right. 66-70 AD.


Just think of just the authors that have $books out that would have to say Whoops, blew it there, sorry. (not that it actually changed anything, just more arguments and another stumbling stone to go around). All I have to do is say, Hey neat, another verse that has just fallen into place and then I tell somebody about it.

I know preci$ely what you are $peaking of! ;)




I find that description somewhat mystifying my friend! You seem to be freely mixing literalisms with symbols, so I don't know which is which. The "wold and lambs" are symbols of certain kinds of people, correct? But the NJ is a literal city in a literal new earth? And there are literal sinners "outside the city" even after all the sinners were tossed in the lake of fire?

Isa:65:25:
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock:
and dust shall be the serpent's meat.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,
saith the LORD.

Isa:11:6:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
Isa:11:7:
And the cow and the bear shall feed;
their young ones shall lie down together:
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa:11:8:
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

I was aware of those verses before I asked the question.


The reason the above is for the new earth is because other verses say for the ones alive after Christ's that they never marry. Since they are Priests and Kings, the who they are priests to and Kings over are those who are raised later, at the GWT in Heaven and they then descend (everybody in the City) onto the new earth and the people who were 'the rest' follow the living water to wherever it goes, they become more numerous the further the waters flow.
That seems like more speculation. The Bible says we all are priests and kings. We don't need to invent a city with other people we are priests for and kings over. That seems to be a plain old misunderstanding of the meaning that God intended.


If that 'creates a 'room problem' I'm quite sure God has a solution that is better than 'leaving some/most behind' for that reason. Those 'suckling and weaned children' start their eternal life after 120 years (probably marked by a very big celebration at regular intervals. That gives then about 100 years of being taught about 'how to act'.

None of that rings any bells concerning the Biblical meaning of the New Heaven and Earth. You yourself have said that no one will be teaching each other. None of it sounds real to me.




The problem with that whole scenario is that it seems to be a private interpretation built upon ambiguous verses. What I mean is, there is no proof of your theories here, and I am pretty sure that it would be very rare to find anyone who agreed with all or even most of what you say on all those points. This is to be compared with the proper interepretation of Scripture which is based on hard facts that God established in the Bible for our edification. We must not assert things that we do not really know. And I am pretty sure you do not really know any of that stuff because it is based on many assumptions that you can not prove. So again, we find ourselves looking for the foundation of our biblical knowledge.

It's based on that God would make salvation a level playing field for everybody, the little ups and downs of the first life are not what keeps you after sins have been forgiven. One death then judgment, perfect justice is not having somebody 20 and somebody 90 facing the same fate based on those years. Scripture already says the Gospel will be preached to the dead so they can be judged equally to the living. If God gave everybody 120 years most do not make it there, is that time lost or do they 'get to hear the Gospel' while in the grave for 100 years or 30 years before it is determined that they belong in the lake or not.
It's another one of those that don't have enough verses to prove or disprove. If you have some I assume it would have been posted.

All of that seems like pure speculation to me. I would never come up with those ideas just by reading the Bible. This is what I don't understand brother Wayne. You make these statements as if you had real knowledge about these things, when in fact they are speculation. Are you not aware of this? Why do say these things that you don't really know?




I don't see any justification for inventing and inserting a 1937+ year gap after the "3rd line" - especially since the last two lines fit perfectly with what happened in 70 AD and Daniel ends with a declaration that everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered in 70 AD.


Just what verse is that anyway?

It was the verse you quoted and numbered.


Yet you justify a 40 year gap between between cut-off and when the temple and city are trashed to the ground, then time screeches to a halt, forever.
No, I don't "justify" any gap. I have been very upfront and said that I was somewhat "befuddled" by how to understand those 40 years.


I don't see it like that, there is a 40 year gap between two important events, there is another gap until the next event, flood would be associated with Christ's SC and the final end is the end of the war against death (the last enemy to be defeated in that death holds no-one, everybody has been accounted for).

As I said, there is no justification for a 1937+ year gap in the middle of that sentence. And it doesn't require a 40 year "gap" either - that's a different issue.


Here's a catch up thought to an earlier question I read somewhere why would a person need 'a body' after the last resurrection is complete. How are the people outside the city supposed to build houses and live in them forever if they have spiritual hands.

Later bro

Wayne
The unbelievers are "outside" the NJ/Church right now. They have physical bodies. What made you think otherwise?

Richard

Rose
12-14-2007, 09:04 PM
The Bible refers to people as 'Seed' starting in the first book:

Gen. 4:25 'And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Gen. 9:8-9 'And God spoke unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you;'

Many times Jesus spoke in parables of 'Seeds', He knew the concept of how the seed grew was basic to our lives, we could readily understand what was being said.

Likewise the same seed analogy can be applied to our life cycle, which is what Jesus was trying to say to us. We begin as a 'seed' in the womb of our Mother’s body (temple), we are nourished by life giving blood, and the 'seed' (zygote) transforms and changes (likened to a seed being sown in the ground, and given water it changes into a growing plant that is able to burst forth from the ground, then with good soil, plenty of water, and the sun it becomes a fruitful plant) into the form of a human body. Our bodies continue to grow and change in the womb with life giving blood, till the time comes when we burst forth in birth, into the light of the sun. We grow in this life, producing fruits, some good some bad till the end of our lives. This has completed the full cycle, then once again 'seeds' (our bodies) are sown into the ground, and the next cycle at a higher level begins…..the resurrection. The 'Seed' that was sown in the earth in death, will now be reborn in the resurrection.

John 12:24 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die, it brings forth much fruit.'

John 3:3-6 'Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus say unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'


1 Cor. 15:42-51 'So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 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. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,'


This is the mystery of the cycle of life…… We must first be sown in the womb (a natural body, the image of the earthly), as a seed that begins to grow from the life giving blood, till we emerge out of the womb, ( born of water) then we grow and produce fruit ending the first cycle. We are then sown again, this time in death, then raised a spiritual body (born of the Spirit) in the resurrection (the image of the heavenly), receiving the water of life, and growing in the light of God, needing the sun no more.

Rev. 22:17 'And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely

Rev. 22:5 'And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.'

We must go through the earthly cycle of birth, and death, to be able to enter the heavenly realm, which is the Kingdom of God, and live with Christ forever. Whichever way God chooses to accomplish this mystery of the resurrection, we do know that it has a proper order, first sowing and then raising. We first must be sown in flesh and blood bodies, then raised in spiritual bodies, conformed to the image of Christ.

Rom. 8:29 'For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.'

Rose

MHz
12-15-2007, 02:36 AM
Hi Rose,
Ec:12:1-12 are some great verses about a persons journey that ends after old age overtakes us.

Wayne

basilfo
12-15-2007, 05:51 AM
Richard said: .........especially since the last two lines fit perfectly with what happened in 70 AD and Daniel ends with a declaration that everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered in 70 AD.


Hi Richard,


Just what verse is that anyway?..............

Later bro

Wayne

Hi Wayne,
It's Dan 12:7. I just wrote some thoughts on it and poof, I hit the wrong key and they vanished trying to post them. Don't you love it when that happens?? :eek: So I'll try again shortly. No, not 2000 yrs from now, quickly. No, I'm not going to type really really fast when I do it. I mean soon, the time is near. I think you understand what all that means. ;)
Sorry, we're sarcastic here in Jersey. Just trying to lighten it up around here.

Dave

TheForgiven
12-15-2007, 09:16 AM
I liked Rose's description of the seed. You all know that our bodies dying represents a seed, which when sown into the ground, gives birth to our spirits. I'm under the impression that the life we live while in the body determines the outcome of our heart and spirit...not a literal heart, but figurative for our desires and way of thinking. That is why Paul uses death as a figure for planting a seed. What is sown is raised into its previous heart. So he says, "What a man sows, is what he shall reap....if you sow to the flesh, you will reap corruption, but if you sow to the Spirit, you shall from the Holy Spirit, reap eternal life..." Thus how you lived in the flesh determines what is sown when it is raised.

I believe our spirits are determined by the outcome of our lives while in the flesh. We are either raised to be additional Satan's, or additional Christ's.

Joe

MHz
12-15-2007, 10:13 AM
Hi Richard,

A "second birth" that begins "when you can walk and talk with Christ" and "many more after that?" I know not of what ye speak.
I'm sure He will explain it all when the time comes.



Yes indeed! That is precisely what happened as I began to study the first century fulfillment of the Dan-Rev-OD prophetic complex.
Okay, you broke the 70 barrier, do you think there is any chance that you went a little overboard after that? Like jamming every single verse about the end into that one time. The first time 'It is done.' is said. 40 years they wandered in the desert, at the end of that 40 God took Moses away onto a mountain (for a few days). As soon as Moses was out of sight they decided to build an idol of gold, Moses comes back and those that had anything to do with the idol were killed. The 40 may have been something similar for 30-70AD. A time of grace before a judgment happens. In 70 AD it was Jerusalem that was judged. Since you say those time are a bit of a mystery then all mysteries about God are not past, which should have happened a long time ago.



Oh it happened all right. 66-70 AD.
Really, seems like the Romans were working as God's servant at that time.
I hope you don't go down the road that also says Satan is working as God's servant in this verse.
Re:8:13: And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

Re:12:12: Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.




That seems like more speculation. The Bible says we all are priests and kings. We don't need to invent a city with other people we are priests for and kings over. That seems to be a plain old misunderstanding of the meaning that God intended.
A not so humble statement. What does 'shall be' mean? Does it mean at this very moment or at some point after, starting from the point in time when the words in any verse are made manifest.
Like this verse,
Re:20:6: Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Are they priests at that very moment or are they priests when they meet God , some time passes between the two events.




None of that rings any bells concerning the Biblical meaning of the New Heaven and Earth. You yourself have said that no one will be teaching each other. None of it sounds real to me.
The 3 verses I posted said we wouldn't be teaching each other, one did say who would be teaching us, Christ.



All of that seems like pure speculation to me. I would never come up with those ideas just by reading the Bible. This is what I don't understand brother Wayne. You make these statements as if you had real knowledge about these things, when in fact they are speculation. Are you not aware of this? Why do say these things that you don't really know?
That you don't accept it doesn't make it invalid. You might very well come up with things like that if you just read the Bible.



No, I don't "justify" any gap. I have been very upfront and said that I was somewhat "befuddled" by how to understand those 40 years.

That doesn't altar the fact that there is a 40 yr gap from the cross to the destruction.



As I said, there is no justification for a 1937+ year gap in the middle of that sentence. And it doesn't require a 40 year "gap" either - that's a different issue.
I didn't put the gap there, God did. Jesus left the earth with His glorified body, He will return the same way, He was 'handled' by people while in a glorified body. Sure there is a reason for a gap, the lat war was not fought then, the last war is God sending fire from Heaven down on Satan, the end of all war.

[/QUOTE]
The unbelievers are "outside" the NJ/Church right now. They have physical bodies. What made you think otherwise?
[/QUOTE]
You also have a physical body.

Wayne

MHz
12-15-2007, 10:26 AM
It's Dan 12:7. I just wrote some thoughts on it and poof, I hit the wrong key and they vanished trying to post them. Don't you love it when that happens?? :eek: So I'll try again shortly. No, not 2000 yrs from now, quickly. No, I'm not going to type really really fast when I do it. I mean soon, the time is near. I think you understand what all that means. ;)
Sorry, we're sarcastic here in Jersey. Just trying to lighten it up around here.

Dave

Hi Dave,
I'll wait for your post till I comment. :pop2:
I don't mind sarcasm, I've even been known to use it myself from time to time.

I assume Jersey is a slang term for New Jerusalem. :lol:

Wayne

Richard Amiel McGough
12-15-2007, 10:45 AM
Richard said: .........especially since the last two lines fit perfectly with what happened in 70 AD and Daniel ends with a declaration that everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered in 70 AD.

Hi Wayne,
It's Dan 12:7. I just wrote some thoughts on it and poof, I hit the wrong key and they vanished trying to post them. Don't you love it when that happens?? :eek: So I'll try again shortly.

Hey there Dave,

There's a way to avoid that loss. I ALWAYS save my post to the clipboard before hitting "submit" or even "preview." Here's what to do. When the focus is in the editor, hit <ctrl>-a to select everything, then hit <ctrl>-c to copy everything to the clipboard. Then if you hit send and your browser blows up, you can just go back to the forum, hit "reply" again, and copy everthing from the clipboard back into the editor window (press <ctrl>-a to select all, then <ctrl>-v to paste everything from the clipboard).




Hi Richard,

Just what verse is that anyway?..............

Later bro

Wayne

So I'll try again shortly. No, not 2000 yrs from now, quickly. No, I'm not going to type really really fast when I do it. I mean soon, the time is near. I think you understand what all that means. ;)
Sorry, we're sarcastic here in Jersey. Just trying to lighten it up around here.

Dave
Sometimes frustration demands sarcasm - but its best avoided whenever possible since some folks might take offense, and I know most definitely that is not your intent! :thumb: I trust all members of this forum realize that though our opinions may strongly differ, we are not trying to shame or insult or mock any brother or sister here! This is very important because the anonymity of the internet has unleashed the wild beastly heart of many who roam around its forums looking for victims to devour with their vile insults, mockery, and abuse.

So let us seek intellectual and spiritual fellowship in the peaceable Spirit of Christ even as we watch our toes blister as we hold each others feet in the fire of True Biblical Eschatology founded on facts rather than fantasies.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-15-2007, 10:57 AM
I liked Rose's description of the seed. You all know that our bodies dying represents a seed, which when sown into the ground, gives birth to our spirits. I'm under the impression that the life we live while in the body determines the outcome of our heart and spirit...not a literal heart, but figurative for our desires and way of thinking. That is why Paul uses death as a figure for planting a seed. What is sown is raised into its previous heart. So he says, "What a man sows, is what he shall reap....if you sow to the flesh, you will reap corruption, but if you sow to the Spirit, you shall from the Holy Spirit, reap eternal life..." Thus how you lived in the flesh determines what is sown when it is raised.

I believe our spirits are determined by the outcome of our lives while in the flesh. We are either raised to be additional Satan's, or additional Christ's.

Joe
There seems to be three "seed" plantings in the life of every Christian:

Natural seed at conception
Spiritual seed at second birth (The incorruptible seed of God's Word)
Natural seed at death (body is planted) after which we rise immortal.Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-15-2007, 12:03 PM
Hey there brother Wayne!

It's nice to be chatting.

Hi Richard,


Yes indeed! That is precisely what happened as I began to study the first century fulfillment of the Dan-Rev-OD prophetic complex.

Okay, you broke the 70 barrier, do you think there is any chance that you went a little overboard after that? Like jamming every single verse about the end into that one time.

Blanket statements like that give me nothing answer and carry the wrong connotation that I have done something I have not done. We have discussed many verses. If you think I have been incorrectly "jamming every single verse about the end into that one time" then you need to respond to the arguemnts I have presented. I have written many explanations that were "answered" with silence and a change of topic. It is wrong for you to make generalized blanket statements after failing to refute my very specific arguments.


The first time 'It is done.' is said. 40 years they wandered in the desert, at the end of that 40 God took Moses away onto a mountain (for a few days). As soon as Moses was out of sight they decided to build an idol of gold, Moses comes back and those that had anything to do with the idol were killed. The 40 may have been something similar for 30-70AD. A time of grace before a judgment happens. In 70 AD it was Jerusalem that was judged. Since you say those time are a bit of a mystery then all mysteries about God are not past, which should have happened a long time ago.

That makes pretty good sense to me! There really does seem to be a strong connection between the 40 years in the wilderness and the 40 years between Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple. Especially when we recall it was because of unbelief. This then also explains the "hardening" of the Jews. God hardened that generation so that they would remain unto the judgment of 70 AD, just like he made Israel wander 40 years till they all died. He could have killed them instantly, but then the children under 20 would have had to wander alone, so He kept the sinners alive long enough to accomplish His purpose, though He had judged them 40 years earlier.

I also think there may be a connection between the woman who went into the wilderness in Rev 12 soon after Christ ascended in 30 AD and the woman who is shown in the wilderness 40 years later in Rev 17 just before she was judged in 70 AD.


Really, seems like the Romans were working as God's servant at that time.

Rome was no more "the Lord's servants" than were the Assyrians that He used as the "rod of His anger" to punish Israel (Isa 10:5). Everyone knows that God used pagan nations to punish Israel. The Romans fit the biblical pattern with perfection.




That seems like more speculation. The Bible says we all are priests and kings. We don't need to invent a city with other people we are priests for and kings over. That seems to be a plain old misunderstanding of the meaning that God intended.

A not so humble statement.


What's not "humble" about quoting the Bible? I didn't quote John out of context. He wrote in the past tense:
Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Its a done deal, just like Peter's declaration of what the Chruch is now and was then at the time he wrote his first epistle:
1 Peter 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


What does 'shall be' mean? Does it mean at this very moment or at some point after, starting from the point in time when the words in any verse are made manifest.
Like this verse,
Re:20:6: Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Are they priests at that very moment or are they priests when they meet God , some time passes between the two events.

First of all, neither you nor I can PROVE the proper interpretation of Rev 20. That's why folks have been arguing about it so long, and that's also why it is a fundamental error to use it as a foundation for any biblical doctrine. We KNOW that God did not intend it as such because He did not give us a sure confirmation of its proper interpretation with any other passages. The meaning of Rev 20 is therefore dependent upon all the general eschatological conclusions derived from the mutually confirming verses.

Now as for your question - the preterist view perfectly coheres with the plain teaching of Scripture found in mutually confirming witnesses from independed books such as Rev and 1 Pet as quoted above. Thus the preterist view has strong Biblical support. And now behold the wonder of coherent eschatology. The proper understanding derived from the mutually confirming witnesses of Rev 1:6 and 1 Pet 2:9 now confirms the preterist view of Rev 20 as representing the Church age, and the evidence rests upon what you thought to be a flaw. The future tense of "shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him" in Rev 20 indicates that that prophecy must have been fulfilled in the first century because John and Peter said that we already had been "made kings and priests" at that time. Thanks for that wonderful insight Wayne! Do you see why I delight in challenges to this view? Every challenge reveals a new confirmation!




All of that seems like pure speculation to me. I would never come up with those ideas just by reading the Bible. This is what I don't understand brother Wayne. You make these statements as if you had real knowledge about these things, when in fact they are speculation. Are you not aware of this? Why do say these things that you don't really know?

That you don't accept it doesn't make it invalid. You might very well come up with things like that if you just read the Bible.
And neither does my lack of acceptance make it valid. My "acceptance" has nothing to do with the issue. The question is whether or not your interpretations accurately reflect what God is teaching in His Word. My point was that some of your interpretations seem founded on assumptions and speculations, and are therefore void of real, factual, bibilcal knoweldge. I say this not to shame you, but to challenge you to provide proof of your interpretations. I am treating you as I would have you treat me, brother.




No, I don't "justify" any gap. I have been very upfront and said that I was somewhat "befuddled" by how to understand those 40 years.

That doesn't altar the fact that there is a 40 yr gap from the cross to the destruction.

Correct. There is a 40 year gap in the history. But that does not mean that there is a 40 year gap in the prophecy. The prophecy appears to end in the 70th week (27-33 AD) with the crucifixion of Christ in 30 AD. The prophecy does not restrict the destruction of the Temple within the 70th week, so there probably is no problem with the "40 year gap." In any case, its nothing like the futurst gap which was invented and inserted into the prophecy to fit an already serously flawed theory.

The preterist is confronted by a factual 40 gap in the history whereas the futurist invents an unspecified gap of thousands of years and inserts it into the prophecy to fit their theory. See the difference?

Richard

joel
12-15-2007, 12:46 PM
Philippians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto [summorphos] his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
The "sum" in "summorphos" is talking about the "sameness" of our form (morph) with that of Christ when we are glorified. I don't see it as refering to the "togetherness" we might have with each other when we get our glorified bodies. If that were the case, then that one prefix would be doing a double duty - first it would indicate the "togetherness" of our future form with that of Christ's (which I believe to be the correct interpretation), and second it would indicate our "togetherenss" when that event occurs. I don't see any justification for assuming that the prefix has two meanings.

Is there anything in the passage that precludes each individual being individually "fashioned like unto" (summorphos) the glorious body of Christ at the time of their death?



Richard, there is no denying that one of the aspects of the "summorphos" concerns the togetherness of form. Our bodies will be "jointly formed" to be like His body.

But, I also assert that there is time element in the word as well. This is a chief element of the "sun" prefix words.

A good illustration of this can be found in Romans 6:6;
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

"Crucified with him, "....is "sustauroo". When He was crucified, we were together crucified with Him. This was on the same cross, and at the same time.

This is a part of our "unity" or "joint-ness".

Another examble would be in the verse immediately before that mentioned above, Romans 6:5;
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

"Planted together" is "sumphutos" which means "to germinate". This is indicating that we have a "joint-ness" to this part of the gospel, just as we have a "joint-ness" to the future event of our resurrection when we will all, together experience a "summorphe" when we are conformed to His image.

The emphasis is on a together-ness, not only in form, but, also as to time.

Joel

basilfo
12-15-2007, 02:04 PM
Hi Dave,
I'll wait for your post till I comment. :pop2:
I don't mind sarcasm, I've even been known to use it myself from time to time.

I assume Jersey is a slang term for New Jerusalem. :lol:

Wayne

Hi Wayne,
Here's basically what I lost earlier. I do usually type in MSWord then cut/paste it in. Thanks for the tip Richard.


Richard posted: .....especially since the last two lines fit perfectly with what happened in 70 AD and Daniel ends with a declaration that everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered in 70 AD.

Wayne asked: what verse would that be?

Dave butts in: The verse you are asking about Wayne, is Dan 12:7. And it’s a great question.

Daniel 12:7 and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these [things] shall be finished.

IMO, this passage might be one of the most overlooked, but solid Scriptural supports for understanding the ‘time of the end’. Here’s the context:

Daniel 12:1 "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands [watch] over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, [Even] to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

First things first. Who is this about? ‘Your people’ (Daniel’s people as opposed to his Babylonian captors) and ‘a nation’ is unmistakably the Jews and the nation of Israel. Nothing fancy there.

Then he tells Daniel good news and bad news. The bad news is that his people and nation will experience a catastrophe greater than any other in their history. BUT. And it’s a big but …… the good news is that some of his people will be delivered from that time of trouble – the ones who are found in the Book (of Life).

12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
12:3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.

Hey, this sounds familiar. It’s the resurrection. The only one spoken of in Scripture connected with judgment. (BTW, I do not consider the raising of saints in Matt 27 to be at all related to what is spoken of here. Different time (at the time of the cross, not 40 yrs later), they appeared on earth - not the spiritual realm, and no judgment occurred. Can’t be the same thing. As Richard said, Matt 27 was an illustration (as the guard said) that ‘surely this was the Son of God’.)

12:4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Wow, now we’re getting somewhere! None of this was to be revealed until the time of the end. And it wasn’t. But that verse sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

Daniel received his prophesy around the 6th century BC, and John’s just prior to 70AD. That explains why one was sealed and one was not. John was told his vision should not be kept quiet, but revealed immediately, for the time is at hand. Coupled with Rev 1:1 which says that ‘these things which were about to take place’, can there be any doubt when the ‘time of the end’ was?

Dan 12:5 Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. 6 And [one] said to the man clothed in linen, who [was] above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders [be?"] 7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who [was] above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that [it shall be] for a time, times, and half [a time;] and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these [things] shall be finished.

So there it is. The holy people in the Old Covenant were the Jews, the nation of Israel. The angel is telling Daniel that when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, ALL these things (that he just described) – the time of trouble like no other for his nation, the deliverance of those written in the Book, and the awakening of those who sleep in the dust to everlasting life WILL BE FINISHED.

I would submit to you that 70AD was a complete shattering – both physically and covenantally – of the nation of Israel and it’s people. It meshes perfectly with Jesus’ prophesy of the end of the temple worship system ‘not one stone left upon another’ and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing! 38 "See! Your house is left to you desolate.” “"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Where in the futurist scheme is the power of the Jews completely shattered. I've never heard it.

Peace to you all,
Dave

Richard Amiel McGough
12-15-2007, 02:49 PM
Richard, there is no denying that one of the aspects of the "summorphos" concerns the togetherness of form. Our bodies will be "jointly formed" to be like His body.

But, I also assert that there is time element in the word as well. This is a chief element of the "sun" prefix words.

A good illustration of this can be found in Romans 6:6;
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

"Crucified with him, "....is "sustauroo". When He was crucified, we were together crucified with Him. This was on the same cross, and at the same time.

This is a part of our "unity" or "joint-ness".

Another examble would be in the verse immediately before that mentioned above, Romans 6:5;
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

"Planted together" is "sumphutos" which means "to germinate". This is indicating that we have a "joint-ness" to this part of the gospel, just as we have a "joint-ness" to the future event of our resurrection when we will all, together experience a "summorphe" when we are conformed to His image.

The emphasis is on a together-ness, not only in form, but, also as to time.

Joel
Hey Joel,

That is a very interesting intepretation, but I don't feel condident that the "planted together" applies to each of us and the time Christ died. On the contrary, did not Paul say that this happened at the time we were baptised (which is different for each person)?

Romans 6:4-5 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 ¶ For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
On the one hand, I like the idea of that we are all in Christ "together" since that is what the Bible clearly says elsewhere, but I'm not confident that I can derive that truth from the use of the prefix "sun" in these passages.

I'll give it more thought. Any help would be much appreciated bro!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-15-2007, 03:04 PM
Richard posted: .....especially since the last two lines fit perfectly with what happened in 70 AD and Daniel ends with a declaration that everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered in 70 AD.

Wayne asked: what verse would that be?

Dave butts in: The verse you are asking about Wayne, is Dan 12:7. And it’s a great question.

Daniel 12:7 and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these [things] shall be finished.

IMO, this passage might be one of the most overlooked, but solid Scriptural supports for understanding the ‘time of the end’.


I'm glad you "butted in" Dave. I agree completely with your statment. Especially since it was cofirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ in the Olivet Discourse:
Luke 21:20-24 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Note the totall integration between Daniel and the OD. Both declare that the Diaspora would mark the fulfillment of "all things." I really am confused about how anyone could miss such astounding correlations between these fundamental prophecies. To me, they stand out like neon signs.


Here’s the context:

Daniel 12:1 "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands [watch] over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, [Even] to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

First things first. Who is this about? ‘Your people’ (Daniel’s people as opposed to his Babylonian captors) and ‘a nation’ is unmistakably the Jews and the nation of Israel. Nothing fancy there.

Then he tells Daniel good news and bad news. The bad news is that his people and nation will experience a catastrophe greater than any other in their history. BUT. And it’s a big but …… the good news is that some of his people will be delivered from that time of trouble – the ones who are found in the Book (of Life).

12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
12:3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.

Hey, this sounds familiar. It’s the resurrection.

Yep! And it also ties the Book of Revelation in with Daniel in this integrated prophetic complex. Gotta love it! Everthing fits tight, clean, and smooth.


The only one spoken of in Scripture connected with judgment. (BTW, I do not consider the raising of saints in Matt 27 to be at all related to what is spoken of here. Different time (at the time of the cross, not 40 yrs later), they appeared on earth - not the spiritual realm, and no judgment occurred. Can’t be the same thing. As Richard said, Matt 27 was an illustration (as the guard said) that ‘surely this was the Son of God’.)
Yes, the more I think on this the more obvious it seems that all the faithful were resurrected and seated with Christ in heaven in the first century. The resurrection is unto the Kingdom in heaven, it is "not of this world" and doesn't need to be manifested here unless God is proving some point. This coheres perfectly with Paul's fivefold repetition in Ephesians that all believers are seated with Chirst the moment they believe. When we die we are resurrected to live and reign with him for the "thousand years" until the whole show is consummated.



12:4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Wow, now we’re getting somewhere! None of this was to be revealed until the time of the end. And it wasn’t. But that verse sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

Daniel received his prophesy around the 6th century BC, and John’s just prior to 70AD. That explains why one was sealed and one was not. John was told his vision should not be kept quiet, but revealed immediately, for the time is at hand. Coupled with Rev 1:1 which says that ‘these things which were about to take place’, can there be any doubt when the ‘time of the end’ was?

Dan 12:5 Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. 6 And [one] said to the man clothed in linen, who [was] above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders [be?"] 7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who [was] above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that [it shall be] for a time, times, and half [a time;] and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these [things] shall be finished.

So there it is. The holy people in the Old Covenant were the Jews, the nation of Israel. The angel is telling Daniel that when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, ALL these things (that he just described) – the time of trouble like no other for his nation, the deliverance of those written in the Book, and the awakening of those who sleep in the dust to everlasting life WILL BE FINISHED.

Amen - that's the total point. There never was and never will be a time like the first century when God walked on earth amongst them. How could this be missed? No matter what is to happen in the future, the point of the prophecies was the coming of the great and might God Jesus Christ our Lord. It was then that all things written were finished.


I would submit to you that 70AD was a complete shattering – both physically and covenantally – of the nation of Israel and it’s people. It meshes perfectly with Jesus’ prophesy of the end of the temple worship system ‘not one stone left upon another’ and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing! 38 "See! Your house is left to you desolate.' '"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Yep - and it fits perfectly with a thousand other pieces of the whole prophetic complex. Well stated Dave! :thumb:


Where in the futurist scheme is the power of the Jews completely shattered. I've never heard it.

Peace to you all,
Dave
Good question.

Richard

TheForgiven
12-15-2007, 05:49 PM
So there it is. The holy people in the Old Covenant were the Jews, the nation of Israel. The angel is telling Daniel that when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, ALL these things (that he just described) – the time of trouble like no other for his nation, the deliverance of those written in the Book, and the awakening of those who sleep in the dust to everlasting life WILL BE FINISHED.

I would submit to you that 70AD was a complete shattering – both physically and covenantally – of the nation of Israel and it’s people. It meshes perfectly with Jesus’ prophesy of the end of the temple worship system ‘not one stone left upon another’ and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing! 38 "See! Your house is left to you desolate.' '"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Where in the futurist scheme is the power of the Jews completely shattered. I've never heard it.

Peace to you all,
Dave

:congrats: Man brother Dave, you never cease to amaze me. I've never bothered to ask that question before. That's very good insight.

Futurist say that Israel will be regathered, an AC will come, but Jesus would come to save the day and remove the AC from His (Jesus) seat, as if He will say, "Begone Satan! That's my seat!" :pop2: Man this is gett'n pretty good.

Anyways, if an AC is supposed to come and cause them a Tribulation, which the Church (by the Futurist view) will be raptured, what happens next? Will they be shattered again, just like what happened in 70 AD?

And if you do believe the rebuilt temple will be destroyed (in the future) why don't you consider the destruction in 70 AD to be applicable? :playball:

I'm VERY interested in your answers to this one.....anyone? anyone?

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-15-2007, 06:50 PM
Where in the futurist scheme is the power of the Jews completely shattered. I've never heard it.

Peace to you all,
Dave
:congrats: Man brother Dave, you never cease to amaze me. I've never bothered to ask that question before. That's very good insight.

Futurist say that Israel will be regathered, an AC will come, but Jesus would come to save the day and remove the AC from His (Jesus) seat, as if He will say, "Begone Satan! That's my seat!" :pop2: Man this is gett'n pretty good.

Anyways, if an AC is supposed to come and cause them a Tribulation, which the Church (by the Futurist view) will be raptured, what happens next? Will they be shattered again, just like what happened in 70 AD?

And if you do believe the rebuilt temple will be destroyed (in the future) why don't you consider the destruction in 70 AD to be applicable? :playball:

I'm VERY interested in your answers to this one.....anyone? anyone?

Joe
Yep, I gotta add my applause too. :clap2: That question - placed with such strategic clarity right at the end of Daniel and as the very sign that would indicate when everything would be fulfilled - must be answered by the futurists.

Richard

TheForgiven
12-15-2007, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by basilfo
Where in the futurist scheme is the power of the Jews completely shattered. I've never heard it.

Peace to you all,
Dave

Man brother Dave, you never cease to amaze me. I've never bothered to ask that question before. That's very good insight.

Futurist say that Israel will be regathered, an AC will come, but Jesus would come to save the day and remove the AC from His (Jesus) seat, as if He will say, "Begone Satan! That's my seat!" Man this is gett'n pretty good.

Anyways, if an AC is supposed to come and cause them a Tribulation, which the Church (by the Futurist view) will be raptured, what happens next? Will they be shattered again, just like what happened in 70 AD?

And if you do believe the rebuilt temple will be destroyed (in the future) why don't you consider the destruction in 70 AD to be applicable?

I'm VERY interested in your answers to this one.....anyone? anyone?

Joe

Yep, I gotta add my applause too. That question - placed with such strategic clarity right at the end of Daniel and as the very sign that would indicate when everything would be fulfilled - must be answered by the futurists.

Richard

:lol: You see what I mean brother Richard? Dave asks questions that are nearly impossible for Futurist to defend against. He used to pose questions like this to Frankie, and of course Frankie would try to bombard the post with multiple verses, and he ends up beating around the bush.

Dave's contributions are very strategic and with not much formulation required. I've come to love and respect him very much.

Great Job Dave.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-15-2007, 10:12 PM
:lol: You see what I mean brother Richard? Dave asks questions that are nearly impossible for Futurist to defend against. He used to pose questions like this to Frankie, and of course Frankie would try to bombard the post with multiple verses, and he ends up beating around the bush.

Dave's contributions are very strategic and with not much formulation required. I've come to love and respect him very much.

Great Job Dave.

Joe
I don't know anything about Frankie so I can't comment about him, but I can say that your description well describes that which generally distinguishes between people who seek the Truth and people who seek to protect their opinions against the Truth.

Its always easy to spot folks who love the truth. They try to narrow down the conversation to the essential point of disagreement so that everyone can discern the truth together, regardless of who may gain a temporary "advantage" in the course of their discussion. The other folks are like squids squirting big clouds of ink to obscure the truth as they attmept to escape to some other topic.

The difference is like night and day. It is obvious to all truth seekers.

And yes, Dave really has some wonderful "one liners" that really cut through the layers of confusion that surround this issue. Well done Dave! :thumb:

Richard

MHz
12-16-2007, 03:31 AM
Hi Dave,


Daniel 12:7 and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these [things] shall be finished.
My translation uses 'scatter' but for 70AD if you mean the destruction and the carrying away into the Nations I can go with that if it also means that some of the ones who weren't Christian Jews also escaped. For a future view the effects of being shattered there is more coming their way once Satan arrives. The only ones left alive are the 144,000 that are sealed 1260 days before Christ's return, in the whole world.



IMO, this passage might be one of the most overlooked, but solid Scriptural supports for understanding the ‘time of the end’. Here’s the context:

Daniel 12:1 "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands [watch] over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, [Even] to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

That time is established by the previous verse;
Da:11:45: And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

The above verse is equal to the 7th trump of Revelation, the time the 7 vials are poured out. The world has just gone through the two woes which is the full of Satan's wrath. The stone without hands in Daniel. The time of trouble (on the inhabitants of the earth) is called the day of the Lord, Daniel introduces it and the finer details are in the rest of the books of the OT after Daniel. Daniel focuses on the kingdoms before that, Revelation focuses on the last kingdom before Da:12:1.

The only names in the book of life that are alive are the 144,000, I assume anybody not alive but still having their names in there would come to be standing with the ones who are alive.



First things first. Who is this about? ‘Your people’ (Daniel’s people as opposed to his Babylonian captors) and ‘a nation’ is unmistakably the Jews and the nation of Israel. Nothing fancy there.
Does that include the not-so-good having some/all sins forgiven? If it includes Daniel how much further back does it go?



Then he tells Daniel good news and bad news. The bad news is that his people and nation will experience a catastrophe greater than any other in their history. BUT. And it’s a big but …… the good news is that some of his people will be delivered from that time of trouble – the ones who are found in the Book (of Life).

12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
12:3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.

Where do the Gentiles fit in here? The ones who are asleep in Christ should also have some names in the book of life. Is "your people" and "everyone in the book" one group or two? If any Gentiles (everlasting contempt)are involved then it can mess with the number of who 'your people' is.
Everlasting contempt in this case has a time-limit, they are sent to hell which is emptied at the GWT. Everlasting would be until the end of this present earth, it would not include any time after the GWT. It should be everybody Christ has as a 'congregation' that goes through this, all the way back to Adam.



Hey, this sounds familiar. It’s the resurrection. The only one spoken of in Scripture connected with judgment. (BTW, I do not consider the raising of saints in Matt 27 to be at all related to what is spoken of here. Different time (at the time of the cross, not 40 yrs later), they appeared on earth - not the spiritual realm, and no judgment occurred. Can’t be the same thing. As Richard said, Matt 27 was an illustration (as the guard said) that ‘surely this was the Son of God’.)
Actually the resurrection of everybody is a two-part affair. The good in life are the ones that become alive in Vs:2, the bad are the ones called 'the rest', it is only they who need to be brought out of the sea, graves, and hell at the GWT. The who stayed alive arrive at the GWT on glorified bodies, they witness 'the rest' being judged.



12:4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Wow, now we’re getting somewhere! None of this was to be revealed until the time of the end. And it wasn’t. But that verse sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

Glad you have caught onto the book that was sealed was the book of Revelation, the last book written by an inspired writer. Not many people get that.

Now if God is consistent, he gives a vision or prophecy and then some time passes before those things are made real. Daniel got his visions hundreds of years before the 70 weeks actually ended. I'm not aware of any OT prophecy that was made real in as few years as the time proposed for the writing of Revelation and it becoming real. That's even if it was written before 70AD
Joh:21:22: Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

How long did the writer tarry? A short timer or a long time? Revelation would seem to be the last text written. Jesus did come to that writer, John covers seeing things in Heaven, saw Jesus in splendor, and was given an outline (to write about) about things that would happen quickly once they started, vision becoming real.



Daniel received his prophesy around the 6th century BC, and John’s just prior to 70AD. That explains why one was sealed and one was not. John was told his vision should not be kept quiet, but revealed immediately, for the time is at hand. Coupled with Rev 1:1 which says that ‘these things which were about to take place’, can there be any doubt when the ‘time of the end’ was?

Dan 12:5 Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. 6 And [one] said to the man clothed in linen, who [was] above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders [be?"] 7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who [was] above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that [it shall be] for a time, times, and half [a time;] and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these [things] shall be finished.

That would seem to fit with this verse,
Joh:19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

I would certainly agree that 'any need for a building' was past put Jesus spent most of His time away from the temple, after Stephen I doubt any Christian ever entered the temple proper again.

I won't even argue that the time, times, and half refer to the 7, 62, and 1 and not a 3 1/2. Of all the wonders Daniel saw the one about the coming of the Messiah was the most important, and the first to end.




So there it is. The holy people in the Old Covenant were the Jews, the nation of Israel. The angel is telling Daniel that when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, ALL these things (that he just described) – the time of trouble like no other for his nation, the deliverance of those written in the Book, and the awakening of those who sleep in the dust to everlasting life WILL BE FINISHED.

No temple, no city, no true prophets, sounds abandoned to me.

Daniel also asked (what even he saw as being the very same) a slightly different way, instead of 'wonders' (KJV) he asked it this way,
Da:12:8: And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
Da:12:9: And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
If it was the same question he should have got some kind of an answer, zip is what he got. The words that were shut then were open up when Revelation was written. Daniel got the info about the time-line for the coming of Jesus as priest. John got the time-line for the second "It is done",
Re:16:15: Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Re:16:16: And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Re:16:17: And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

The end of things is the end of the last beast, Christ's SC is the start, the destruction of Satan end of any wrath.

There is even 1 more time after that.

Daniel was told a few things that only Revelation expands greatly on.

Da:12:10: Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Re:22:11: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Re:22:12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

These next ones should be about the 42 months the beast has and the image that he has built, I'm still shuffling the numbers but something should happen 30 days before the beast starts his time. The sealing of the 144,000 and the ones from the churches that do not need to overcome anything would also be up for some protection during the coming days. (you know, when it starts to become real) need to happen. Do the Angels ever read those letters to the churches? Do the protected have to travel anywhere or do you stay put and start praying in earnest, and getting some definate answers?

Da:12:11: And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Da:12:12: Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
(If you are alive here you are in pretty good shape I assume, the last verse here could be a reference to the last "It is done." Daniel would be standing in the group he belongs in)
Da:12:13: But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.




I would submit to you that 70AD was a complete shattering – both physically and covenantally – of the nation of Israel and it’s people. It meshes perfectly with Jesus’ prophesy of the end of the temple worship system ‘not one stone left upon another’ and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing! 38 "See! Your house is left to you desolate.' '"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Yeah, they really shouldn't have contemplated killing Jeremiah. Now they get reduced to less than 150,000 before help arrives. The nations fair even less well, besides the numbers killed in those battles in Da:11, they are the 1/3 of (all) men killed by the 200M (4 fallen angels), then Christ takes 2/3 of the Gentiles at His SC.



Where in the futurist scheme is the power of the Jews completely shattered. I've never heard it.


Being carried of into the Nations and then left pretty much left alone is certainly less severe than having Satan roaming around with some real force (Job rules not in effect) knowing that God is not going to help you until the appointed time. The comfort for them comes after the Beast and False Prophet are in the lake.

Wayne

TheForgiven
12-17-2007, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by basilfo View Post
Where in the futurist scheme is the power of the Jews completely shattered. I've never heard it.
Being carried of into the Nations and then left pretty much left alone is certainly less severe than having Satan roaming around with some real force (Job rules not in effect) knowing that God is not going to help you until the appointed time. The comfort for them comes after the Beast and False Prophet are in the lake.

Wayne

So Wayne, are you saying that you believe the power of the holy people being shattered refers to the dispora or something? I can see where you might think that but it doesn't line up with Daniel's final week, which we now without a single ounce of doubt was fulfilled in 70 AD. And besides, their comfort is not based on what land they own or live on, as John Haggae believers seem to think. What matters is the Kingdom of God and their happiness found on the heavenly Jerusalem, not the worldly one. Which Jerusalem would you prefer?

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-17-2007, 10:22 PM
So Wayne, are you saying that you believe the power of the holy people being shattered refers to the dispora or something? I can see where you might think that but it doesn't line up with Daniel's final week, which we now without a single ounce of doubt was fulfilled in 70 AD. And besides, their comfort is not based on what land they own or live on, as John Haggae believers seem to think. What matters is the Kingdom of God and their happiness found on the heavenly Jerusalem, not the worldly one. Which Jerusalem would you prefer?

Joe
Hey Joe,

The word in Dan 12:7 can mean either "shattered" or "scattered." It certainly is consistent with the diaspora, and also fits with Christ's words in the OD that they would be led away captive.

On the other hand their power certainly was "shattered" in 70 AD, so both interpretations are consistent with history and the other prophecies.

So what problem are you seeing with identifying Dan 12:7 as fulfilled in the Diaspora? It certainly was fulfilled in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Is the problem that it took another 70 years or so to finish the job thoughout the rest of Israel?

Richard

MHz
12-17-2007, 10:36 PM
So Wayne, are you saying that you believe the power of the holy people being shattered refers to the dispora or something?
No Joe, it gets much worse than just losing a piece of land.

Mic:3:1: And I said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment?
Mic:3:2: Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;
Mic:3:3: Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.
Mic:3:4: Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.

Eze:39:23: And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.
Eze:39:24: According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.



What matters is the Kingdom of God and their happiness found on the heavenly Jerusalem, not the worldly one. Which Jerusalem would you prefer?


The one that is there at the end of these verses, then after 1000 years off to heaven to meet GOD face-to-face and then enter His new Jerusalem.

Am:2:5: But I will send a fire upon Judah, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem.

Mic:3:12: Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.

Zep:1:12: And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their heart, The LORD will not do good, neither will he do evil.

Zec:14:17: And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Joe:3:20: But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.

Wayne

TheForgiven
12-18-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by TheForgiven
So Wayne, are you saying that you believe the power of the holy people being shattered refers to the dispora or something?
No Joe, it gets much worse than just losing a piece of land.
Mic:3:1: And I said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment?
Mic:3:2: Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;
Mic:3:3: Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.Mic:3:4: Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.

Eze:39:23: And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.
Eze:39:24: According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.

Brother MHz! Forgive me for sounding a bit bold, but I hope you understand that these things already happened. Have you never read the stories of the horrifying tortures the Jews went through? What about the early Church martyrs? Have you never read what the Roman Empire did to Christians throughout Asia Minor?

What do you think happened to the Jews who were captured in 70AD? The ones who were not nailed to crosses, killed by the sword, or destroyed in the fires, what do you think happened to them? Did they just get up, walk away, and decided to make a truce or perhaps travel abroad and settle in other towns?

Many of these Jews, even young children, were throne alive into the Arena to face the wild Beasts.

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_7/images/martyrdom.jpg

This didn't just happen to Christians, but to anyone they considered to be a Jew. And I'm talking about things that Vespasian and Titus did while they were Emperor.

The Apostle Thomas, according to St. Eusebius, was flayed after having been dragged 100's of feet on the ground through rocks and stones. After they were done dragging him, he was flayed (all skin removed), and then nailed to an X-shaped cross.

I can't believe you think these things have not yet happened.

joe

[I edited this post as it sounded mean, and I apologize about that brother MHz. I feel passionate about the horrors and deaths both Jews and Christians suffered at the hands of the Roman Beastly kingdom. The Jews may have been evil, but not near as evil as the Roman Empire]

TheForgiven
12-18-2007, 06:31 PM
So what problem are you seeing with identifying Dan 12:7 as fulfilled in the Diaspora? It certainly was fulfilled in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Is the problem that it took another 70 years or so to finish the job thoughout the rest of Israel?

Richard

Sorry for missing this question brother Richard. I didn't see it until tonight.

I believe the power of the holy being being broken is probably the correct understanding. Or Daniel may have been told that the scattering of the Jews would be completed. I believe this was completed in 70AD.

My understanding is that Daniel was referring to the destructive power and forces that would come upon them, thereby putting an end to Daniel's people and his city....the shattering of Daniel's people.

I suppose it could have meant the dispersion, but this only provides more fuel to the Futurist who believe that the dispersion is still active; at least until 1948 which they call the regathering. Or even the raising of David's flag in 1967. Either way, I don't see those as significant signs.

My question about the dispersion is which one are we talking about? The dispersion from the Babylonian captivity unto 70 AD? Or from the Babylonian captivity until the distant future? If the distant future, then we're talking about more than 2500 years of dispersion. That's more than 2000 years of Daniel's intended 490 years (seventy sevens). That fuels the interpretation of a supposed gap in the seventy sevens, yet Futurist admit that the first 483 years were consecutive and contained no gap at all. So where in scripture does it say that the Jews would be dispersed for "x" amount of years?

Joe

TheForgiven
12-21-2007, 07:43 AM
Friends, I think the topic of the resurrection is very important. Indeed our Biblical knowledge and faith all hinges on the hope of the resurrection. All of us understand the nature of our spirits being raised through baptism into death; we all agree on that one, so let's have a discussion on the resurrection to heaven.

Paul talks about the resurrection to the Corinthians, and in his letter, this is perhaps the most direct explanation Paul gives regarding the resurrection. Therefore, let's review these passages and see if we can't pinpoint WITHIN CONTEXT what Paul was trying to say.

1 Corinthians 15:


35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? 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 grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

Beginning with verse 35, listen to the question. They asked, "With what kind of body do they (those resurrected) come? This implies a type of separated or undifferentiated body. In other words, one body traded for a new one. But Paul replies, "Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive until it dies..."

Now lets keep this in perspective. What is Paul talking about? He uses farming (seed sowing) as an example. A seed is sown into the ground. After it germinates, the shell brakes open and it comes to life. Over time, the formerly dried seed becomes a living thing and grows into its assigned shape.

Now read the rest of the passages WITH the figure of a simple seed.


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.
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.

Just as there are differences in the types of seeds, there are differences in what these seeds become.....again, keep this in perspective. There are tomato plant seeds, apple seeds, etc. and all these are predetermined as to what they shall be, and this by God. But every seed has its own existence and splendor; the same applies to us when we die.


42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. 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. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Just as seeds are sown into the ground and die (corruption), the same figure is applied to the burying of our bodies at death. What we sow is sown into the ground; the same as an apple seed sown into the ground. An apple seed is a natural physical seed. When germination is completed, the internal pulp breaks forth and produces an apple tree. This same figure is applied to our bodies, which are figuratively sown as seeds. Our bodies decay (germinate) just as a natural seed does.

Now please listen because this is VERY important, or this will confuse you. :attention: A seed that germinates (or decays) does not grow into another seed. An apple seed is not raised as an apple seed, but an apple tree. A Tomato plant seed is sown, but it is not raised as a tomato plant seed. (I'm sure you get my point) What is sown IS NOT the BODY TO BE, but just a seed. We can't get any more clearer than this. What you sow into the ground is nothing more than a seed. So to suggest that our bodies are raised as flesh and bone is to suggest that a seed is sown, and a seed is raised; a body sown is a body raised.

Now wonder why Paul referred to the Corinthians as "Foolish". The seed is sown a natural body, and after germination, the natural is transformed into a different splendor. Thus, the natural body is sown a natural seed, but what is raised is NOT a natural body, but a spiritual body. Does this mean two separate bodies, as if to say one now and a different later? Not in the slightest. Even though the apple tree began as a seed, it is not therefore separated. To suggest that is not wise. At the resurrection, our bodies do not die and simply remain, but only the natural parts do. What is important is NOT the natural parts of our members, but what's inside is the important splendor. That, I believe, is our soul or spirit. Our spirits are the internal pulp within a natural seed. And what is sown into the ground is nothing more than a seed, which when ready, the internal pulp (or spirit) is given birth to what ever its condition is in.

Therefore, what is sown natural, will be raised spiritual, and they are all linked together, just as an apple tree is linked to its prior existence as a mere seed. The same with us at the resurrection. What dies is buried into the ground, but what's internal is raised to be with the Lord. Thus the say, "To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord...." And in the heavens we're promised a new body, not made by the natural union of hands, but on the promises of God, transitioning from the natural to the spiritual., as explained below.


46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord[e] 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.

In conclusion, the resurrection functions the same as farming. Our bodies are sown as seeds, but the glory is what's within, and NOT what's without. Those who concentrate on the outside need to understand that God came to save our souls, not our bodies. Our bodies are mere tents, but our spirits are what's given life. And if the Spirit of Him exists within our earthly tents, only through Him do we obtain the eternal glory and splendor of the heavenly tent.

A promise is a promise, and we through faith await that promise. I hope this helped. To those who put their faith in what they see, are showing that they do not have faith. For as Paul says, "We walk by faith, and not by sight...."

Joe

MHz
12-21-2007, 09:26 AM
I can't believe you think these things have not yet happened.
Oh, I'm more than a little sure Jerusalem was sacked in 70AD. I'm also more than a little sure persecution existed well past the end of the Roman period. It isn't like Jews and Christians were the only people ever persecuted, nor is untrue that Christians were always the victims. Who do you think was handing out small-pox infected blankets to the North American Indians? Soldiers or Missionaries?



[I edited this post as it sounded mean, and I apologize about that brother MHz. I feel passionate about the horrors and deaths both Jews and Christians suffered at the hands of the Roman Beastly kingdom. The Jews may have been evil, but not near as evil as the Roman Empire]
Wait till you meet the original cause of evil if you think man can cause bad things to happen to other men.

Where does this person fit in with the statue of Da:2, or any other chapter in all of Daniel.
Lu:3:1: Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,......

Does it put a name found in Scripture to somebody not identified previously, say like a horn from the brass that has some interactivity with the city of Jerusalem and the people from the 12 tribes.


Wayne

Abigail
12-21-2007, 10:31 AM
Friends, I think the topic of the resurrection is very important. Indeed our Biblical knowledge and faith all hinges on the hope of the resurrection. All of us understand the nature of our spirits being raised through baptism into death; we all agree on that one, so let's have a discussion on the resurrection to heaven.

Paul talks about the resurrection to the Corinthians, and in his letter, this is perhaps the most direct explanation Paul gives regarding the resurrection. Therefore, let's review these passages and see if we can't pinpoint WITHIN CONTEXT what Paul was trying to say.

1 Corinthians 15:



Beginning with verse 35, listen to the question. They asked, "With what kind of body do they (those resurrected) come? This implies a type of separated or undifferentiated body. In other words, one body traded for a new one. But Paul replies, "Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive until it dies..."

Now lets keep this in perspective. What is Paul talking about? He uses farming (seed sowing) as an example. A seed is sown into the ground. After it germinates, the shell brakes open and it comes to life. Over time, the formerly dried seed becomes a living thing and grows into its assigned shape.

Now read the rest of the passages WITH the figure of a simple seed.



Just as there are differences in the types of seeds, there are differences in what these seeds become.....again, keep this in perspective. There are tomato plant seeds, apple seeds, etc. and all these are predetermined as to what they shall be, and this by God. But every seed has its own existence and splendor; the same applies to us when we die.



Just as seeds are sown into the ground and die (corruption), the same figure is applied to the burying of our bodies at death. What we sow is sown into the ground; the same as an apple seed sown into the ground. An apple seed is a natural physical seed. When germination is completed, the internal pulp breaks forth and produces an apple tree. This same figure is applied to our bodies, which are figuratively sown as seeds. Our bodies decay (germinate) just as a natural seed does.

Now please listen because this is VERY important, or this will confuse you. :attention: A seed that germinates (or decays) does not grow into another seed. An apple seed is not raised as an apple seed, but an apple tree. A Tomato plant seed is sown, but it is not raised as a tomato plant seed. (I'm sure you get my point) What is sown IS NOT the BODY TO BE, but just a seed. We can't get any more clearer than this. What you sow into the ground is nothing more than a seed. So to suggest that our bodies are raised as flesh and bone is to suggest that a seed is sown, and a seed is raised; a body sown is a body raised.

Now wonder why Paul referred to the Corinthians as "Foolish". The seed is sown a natural body, and after germination, the natural is transformed into a different splendor. Thus, the natural body is sown a natural seed, but what is raised is NOT a natural body, but a spiritual body. Does this mean two separate bodies, as if to say one now and a different later? Not in the slightest. Even though the apple tree began as a seed, it is not therefore separated. To suggest that is not wise. At the resurrection, our bodies do not die and simply remain, but only the natural parts do. What is important is NOT the natural parts of our members, but what's inside is the important splendor. That, I believe, is our soul or spirit. Our spirits are the internal pulp within a natural seed. And what is sown into the ground is nothing more than a seed, which when ready, the internal pulp (or spirit) is given birth to what ever its condition is in.

Therefore, what is sown natural, will be raised spiritual, and they are all linked together, just as an apple tree is linked to its prior existence as a mere seed. The same with us at the resurrection. What dies is buried into the ground, but what's internal is raised to be with the Lord. Thus the say, "To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord...." And in the heavens we're promised a new body, not made by the natural union of hands, but on the promises of God, transitioning from the natural to the spiritual., as explained below.



In conclusion, the resurrection functions the same as farming. Our bodies are sown as seeds, but the glory is what's within, and NOT what's without. Those who concentrate on the outside need to understand that God came to save our souls, not our bodies. Our bodies are mere tents, but our spirits are what's given life. And if the Spirit of Him exists within our earthly tents, only through Him do we obtain the eternal glory and splendor of the heavenly tent.

A promise is a promise, and we through faith await that promise. I hope this helped. To those who put their faith in what they see, are showing that they do not have faith. For as Paul says, "We walk by faith, and not by sight...."

Joe


Joe

You cannot admonish us to use the picture of a seed generating and then abandon that frame when it does not fit your purpose. You cannot exclude flesh and bone from your equation by using this means ...it doesnt work. An apple tree which grows out of an apple seed is still something physical it is just the thing in fulness. The nature of its material has been added to, but there are still parts that are very much the same ie an apple tree will still have apple seeds.

1 John 3:1-2 "See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is"

It has not yet appeared yet what we shall be but when He appears we shall be like Him and we will see Him just as He is.

TheForgiven
12-21-2007, 11:48 AM
Joe

You cannot admonish us to use the picture of a seed generating and then abandon that frame when it does not fit your purpose. You cannot exclude flesh and bone from your equation by using this means ...it doesnt work. An apple tree which grows out of an apple seed is still something physical it is just the thing in fulness. The nature of its material has been added to, but there are still parts that are very much the same ie an apple tree will still have apple seeds.

I'm sorry friend, I guess I confused you in what I was trying to say. What is sown is in fact raised, but not outwardly. The body without the spirit is dead, being by itself. And it is not the body that gives the spirit life, but the spirit gives the body life. My point is that our resurrection is not about the phsical flesh and bone, but about our spirits. That is the more important between the two. Does this mean we are raised as nothing more that spirits? No, not at all. As Paul said, "Though our outward mand is decaying, yet our inward man [our spirit] is being renewed day by day..." The body is a tent used for our spirits. But after being raised, what was once flesh and bone is transformed into the heavenly figure, splender, appearance, glory, and what ever attributes we can apply.

The problem with those who hope of a fleshly resurrection is they assume that eternal life is about flesh, bone, and blood. That is not the case at all. Remeber Jesus's Body? Remember the nail wounds he showed to St. Thomas for him to thrust his fingers in? Now had Jesus had actual flesh and blood, don't you think He would have bled all over the place? Additionally, don't you think he would have cried in pain? Woud you want someone thrusting their fingers in your earthly body if it were wounded? I'm sure the answer is no.

What I'm trying to say is that a raised person does not bear the image or splender of the earthly tent, but the heavenly tent..

Joe

Abigail
12-21-2007, 12:13 PM
The problem with those who hope of a fleshly resurrection is they assume that eternal life is about flesh, bone, and blood. That is not the case at all. Remeber Jesus's Body? Remember the nail wounds he showed to St. Thomas for him to thrust his fingers in? Now had Jesus had actual flesh and blood, don't you think He would have bled all over the place? Additionally, don't you think he would have cried in pain? Woud you want someone thrusting their fingers in your earthly body if it were wounded? I'm sure the answer is no.

What I'm trying to say is that a raised person does not bear the image or splender of the earthly tent, but the heavenly tent..

Joe

Well, what you are saying is different to what Jesus Himself said about His resurrected body.

Luke 24:39 "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"

TheForgiven
12-21-2007, 12:43 PM
Well, what you are saying is different to what Jesus Himself said about His resurrected body.

Luke 24:39 "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"

To show Himself that He was resurrected because the Apostles were saddened and did not believe. Remember how Moses and Elijah appeared to Him on the mountain? How about the burning Bush, the Shakina (spelling) glory, and the fire which consumed the sacrifice of Joshua.

My point is the heavenly being is of power and they are able to show themselve to anyone in any shape or form. Most importantly, I don't believe Jesus sits upon His throne in the heavens with a glorious body filled with nail wounds and a hole on His side where He was pierced with the sword.

What do you think friend?

Joe

TheForgiven
12-21-2007, 12:58 PM
You know what everyone? I tried and I just can't bring myself to do it. I thought I'd play the opponent and say that the body is not raised, but I just can't do it.

I must stick to my original position and conclude that the body is in fact raised. Sure it might decay, but God is able to bring into being, from that which doesn't exist. Remember Adam and how he was made? Remember Eve's creation from a single rib? Remember the 5,000 people that were fed from only five loves and a single fish? Should we forget the awesome power of God. NEVER!

Please forgive me for trying to test the theory....Just to clarify, I do believe in the resurrection of the body, from earthly to heavenly, from former to future, from corruption to incorruption....I believe these things. I thought I'd try to use another sword and it just doesn't compare to the sword of God's word.

Jesus was raised in bodily form, we were promised the same resurrection, therefore I believe in it.

Please forgive me all.....especially abigail and MHz for trying to test you.

Joe

Abigail
12-21-2007, 01:25 PM
My point is the heavenly being is of power and they are able to show themselve to anyone in any shape or form. Most importantly, I don't believe Jesus sits upon His throne in the heavens with a glorious body filled with nail wounds and a hole on His side where He was pierced with the sword.

What do you think friend?

Joe Pre-fallen Adam had a physical body, so I have no reason to think that we shall not have some kind of physical bodies too.
Job also seemed to have a hope of physical resurrection
Job 19:25-26 "And as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at last He will take His stand on the earth. Even after my skin is destroyed. Yet from my flesh I shall see God"

TheForgiven
12-21-2007, 06:07 PM
Pre-fallen Adam had a physical body, so I have no reason to think that we shall not have some kind of physical bodies too.
Job also seemed to have a hope of physical resurrection
Job 19:25-26 "And as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at last He will take His stand on the earth. Even after my skin is destroyed. Yet from my flesh I shall see God"

The Pre-fallen Adam theory is not Biblical. The assumption is that Adam and Eve both had eternal life before they bit the apple. But there is no evidence or proof to support that theory.

When God said, "You shall surely die....." He wasn't talking about physical death, but spiritual death. Paul taught that sin reigns in death, but righteousness through Christ leads to eternal life.


Romans 7
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

When Adam and Eve bit the apple, they became aware of sin. And because they had the knowledge of sin, that gave birth to temptation, leading to sin. And as the scripture says, when sin has fully conceived, it gives birth the death.


James 1
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

And death is the penalty or sting of sin. But to assume that Adam and Eve possessed a state of innocence making it impossible to die is not biblically warranted. I do not agree with those who believe that a kind of paradise will be restored, and everyone will drink water from a river and eat vegetables and fruits for eternity. That type of Futurist fiction shows that they do not understand the difference between heaven and earth, the farm and the barn.

If everyone has to drink water from a river, or eat fruit from a tree, to stay alive, then how is that eternity? And if these things are not required to possess an eternity, then why even bother? Was it not Christ who said to the thief on the cross, "By this time tomorrow, you will be with me in paradise..." Sounded like a promise to me.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 08:23 PM
You know what everyone? I tried and I just can't bring myself to do it. I thought I'd play the opponent and say that the body is not raised, but I just can't do it.

I must stick to my original position and conclude that the body is in fact raised. Sure it might decay, but God is able to bring into being, from that which doesn't exist. Remember Adam and how he was made? Remember Eve's creation from a single rib? Remember the 5,000 people that were fed from only five loves and a single fish? Should we forget the awesome power of God. NEVER!
Hey there Joe!

I'm glad you are struggling with this .... because so am I.

I agree that God is able to do as He will, and that His power is awesome. But now I am very confused about what you are suggesting. It sounds like you are saying that God is going to create a new corpse that corresponds to the condition of my actual corpse at some point of decomposition before it was completely annihilated, and then God will "resurrect" that recreated corpse. But that is a problem for me, because my original corpse was not resurrected, rather, a copy was resurrected ... and the Bible doesn't say anything about copies of semi-rotten corpses being "resurrected" which wouldn't make any sense anyway since the the copy was never alive in the first place!

I really don't think the copy-corpse concept is really going to help understand the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection.

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to understand the "spritual body" is "our house which is from heaven" (2 Cor 5:2). The idea of a physical body in the earthly dusty sense does not seem necessary, though I admit it is a possibility.


Please forgive me for trying to test the theory....

Forgive TheForgiven? No problem! :lol: But seriously, there is nothing to forgive. I think it is very admirable that you are willing to change you mind in public and question the validity of some view you have held. That is an excellent example to the rest of us! :thumb:


Just to clarify, I do believe in the resurrection of the body, from earthly to heavenly, from former to future, from corruption to incorruption....I believe these things. I thought I'd try to use another sword and it just doesn't compare to the sword of God's word.

Jesus was raised in bodily form, we were promised the same resurrection, therefore I believe in it.

Please forgive me all.....especially abigail and MHz for trying to test you.

Joe
I appreciate your effort, but I don't believe it is what the Bible really teaches. As mentioned frequently, Jesus was a special case. His body of flesh and blood "did not see corruption." Yours and mine probably will, and very well may be completely annihilated before we are "resurrected." Therefore, the average Christian most definitely was not promised to experience exactly what Christ experienced in His resurrection on at least two points. So I don't think your argument stands. Furthermore, it appears that Christ's resurrection body was not really "physical" in the normal sense of the word since He could walk through walls. This suggests that He had the ability to "reduce" His supernatural body to interact with natural bodies, but I see no reason to suggest that His supernatural body was in any way limited to being a mere "physical existence." It was a supernatural spiritual body.

Like I said, I'm still working on this. But I find big problems with the words most folks are prone to use like "resurrection" of a non-existent corpse, and "physical body" which may (though not necessarily) be the meaning of "natural body" which is contrasted with the resurrected "spiritual body."

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 08:58 PM
Pre-fallen Adam had a physical body, so I have no reason to think that we shall not have some kind of physical bodies too.


Well, how does that fit with this?
1 Corinthians 15:44-45 It is sown a natural [pseuchikos] body; it is raised a spiritual [pneumikos] body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul [pseuche]; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit [pneuma].
The parallel is obviously deliberate:

Adam: natural body and living soul
Christ: spiritual body and life giving spirit

We are promised a resurrection like Christ, that is, a spiritual body. That's the point of this thread, to understand the meaning of the natural vs. the spiritual bodies, right? I think we still have some work to do on that question.


Job also seemed to have a hope of physical resurrection
Job 19:25-26 "And as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at last He will take His stand on the earth. Even after my skin is destroyed. Yet from my flesh I shall see God"
Yes, that verse is frequently used to support a fleshly resurrection. But its meaning is rather uncertain. For example, the 1917 JPS Tanakh says "And when after my skin this is destroyed, then without my flesh shall I see God." The reason for the uncertainty is because the word translated as "from my flesh" or "without my flesh" is mibassar, formed from the root basar (flesh) prefixed with a Mem to indicate the prepostition "from" - but it also can mean "without" in which case that verse acquires a very different meaning.

But in any case, a single ambiguous line from the poetical book of Job is certainly not going to give us much light on the resurrection body compared with the large didactic exposition of 1 Corinthians 15.

Richard

MHz
12-21-2007, 10:09 PM
Hi Richard,


But in any case, a single ambiguous line from the poetical book of Job is certainly not going to give us much light on the resurrection body compared with the large didactic exposition of 1 Corinthians 15.

That isn't the only reference job gave about death and resurrection.
Job:14:12:
So man lieth down,
and riseth not:
till the heavens be no more,
they shall not awake,
nor be raised out of their sleep.
Job:14:13:
O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave,
that thou wouldest keep me secret,
until thy wrath be past,
that thou wouldest appoint me a set time,
and remember me!
Job:14:14:
If a man die,
shall he live again?
all the days of my appointed time will I wait,
till my change come.
Job:14:15:
Thou shalt call,
and I will answer thee:
thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.

You are right, the NT covers it in much more detail, lot of verses but 1 or 2 does not contain the whole message,

1Co:15:16:
For if the dead rise not,
then is not Christ raised:
1Co:15:17:
And if Christ be not raised,
your faith is vain;
ye are yet in your sins.
1Co:15:18:
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
1Co:15:19:
If in this life only we have hope in Christ,
we are of all men most miserable.
1Co:15:20:
But now is Christ risen from the dead,
and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co:15:21:
For since by man came death,
by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co:15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co:15:23:
But every man in his own order:
Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co:15:24:
Then cometh the end,
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father;
when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co:15:25:
For he must reign,
till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co:15:26:
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co:15:27:
For he hath put all things under his feet.
But when he saith all things are put under him,
it is manifest that he is excepted,
which did put all things under him.
1Co:15:28:
And when all things shall be subdued unto him,
then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him,
that God may be all in all.

1Co:15:32:
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantageth it me,
if the dead rise not?
let us eat and drink;
for to morrow we die.

Wayne

basilfo
12-21-2007, 10:45 PM
Great discussion on this topic. I knew it would cause us to study more and ensure our 'positions' were firmly based in Scripture, not in 'what we have been told by so-and-so'.

The primary text IMO is still 1 Cor 15. And we find nothing about 're-creating' or 're-aligning' scattered, decayed flesh into flesh again. If the resurrected body is to have ANY physical aspect (mass, blood, bones, flesh, etc.), Paul didn't mention it. In fact, he went out of his way to draw the CONTRAST between what we are now (mass, blood, bones, flesh = natural = first) and what we will then be ("spiritual" = second).

And just in case we didn't understand "There is a natural body. There is a spiritual body.", he says 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.'

CAN God recreate a physical body after it has been scattered into the dust?? Uhh, yup. But I imagine if I tried to convince you that all cows will be changed into staplers next week by saying, "Well, can't God's power accomplish that??", you would reject it. Whether God CAN do something is not a sound basis for interpretation.

Scripture says we will be LIKE Him. It does not say the type body we will have when resurrected will be exactly like the body Jesus had after he arose. Jesus' body bore some wounds of his crucifixion. Do you who believe in a physical body believe you will have some of the physical damage you incurred in this life? A bumb knee, or the scar from a car accident or arthritis? I doubt it. So you don't really believe it will be exactly like His body. The purpose of Jesus' body between His resurrection and His ascension was very different from the purpose of ours after our resurrection.

I'm sorry I have come to a different understanding than you Joseph, my dear friend and brother. IMO, the primary text calls it a 'spiritual body', we will reside in the spiritual realm after death, the required re-creation has no basis in Scripture, there is not a single example of any resurrection of decayed bodies to eternal life. I believe the phys body is a product of the belief in a physical/earthly/future reign here on earth where a physical body would be required. After all, some BODY would have to lube the hinges on those massive gates of the future 1500x1500x1500 mile New Jerusalem.;)

Imagine what you would say to someone who claimed the body would be spiritual if Paul said "it is raised a PHYSICAL body." Would they have a leg to stand on?? No. So why, when Paul says "it is raised a spiritual body", can we claim he means 'physical'?? I still say it is one of the clearest passages in Scripture for my simple brain. But if I'm missing something, please let me know - that's what I'm here for.

1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man [is] the Lord from heaven.

Peace to you all,
Dave

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 10:51 PM
Hi Richard,

That isn't the only reference job gave about death and resurrection.
Job:14:12:
So man lieth down,
and riseth not:
till the heavens be no more,
they shall not awake,
nor be raised out of their sleep.
Job:14:13:
O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave,
that thou wouldest keep me secret,
until thy wrath be past,
that thou wouldest appoint me a set time,
and remember me!
Job:14:14:
If a man die,
shall he live again?
all the days of my appointed time will I wait,
till my change come.
Job:14:15:
Thou shalt call,
and I will answer thee:
thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.

You are right, the NT covers it in much more detail, lot of verses but 1 or 2 does not contain the whole message,

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for that passage, I had forgotten about it. But it is Hebrew poetry, which is really full of double meanings and overtones and puns and things so it can't be read as an expostition on the resurrection. But you already knew that .... ;)

Richard

Abigail
12-22-2007, 04:16 AM
The Pre-fallen Adam theory is not Biblical. The assumption is that Adam and Eve both had eternal life before they bit the apple. But there is no evidence or proof to support that theory.

When God said, "You shall surely die....." He wasn't talking about physical death, but spiritual death. Paul taught that sin reigns in death, but righteousness through Christ leads to eternal life.

No, the only presumption I am making is that Adam was a physical being who had direct communion with God. Genesis implies he had access to the tree of life (which in eating makes one live forever) in that after Adam sinned God stationed the cherubim to guard him from eating from it (Genesis 3:24).



When Adam and Eve bit the apple, they became aware of sin. And because they had the knowledge of sin, that gave birth to temptation, leading to sin. And as the scripture says, when sin has fully conceived, it gives birth the death. Could I ask you to include scripture references so I can look things up as that makes it easier for me to see contexts etc :thumb:.

When Adam and Eve bit the apple they experienced sin and they suddenly knew they were naked. Often times in life when we think about situations we think we will act in a certain way, however when we actually *experience* the situation we often find we do not act as we once though because in the experience we gain a deeper understanding and things become apparant that theoretically we just couldnt forsee. Now when Adam and Eve knew they were naked was it only because they suddenly realised they never had clothes on or was it because they lost their covering (state of goodstanding and benevolence from God), a consequence they never foresaw, on eating the apple (if indeed it was an apple :confused:) and the only way he could act in trying to regain 'cover' was by physically trying to cover what was naked, he knew he was exposed and thought covering up his flesh would make it right. He was trying to justify his flesh in a fleshly way but flesh is justified by the spirit (Gal 2:16)



And death is the penalty or sting of sin. But to assume that Adam and Eve possessed a state of innocence making it impossible to die is not biblically warranted. I do not agree with those who believe that a kind of paradise will be restored, and everyone will drink water from a river and eat vegetables and fruits for eternity. That type of Futurist fiction shows that they do not understand the difference between heaven and earth, the farm and the barn. Adam walked together with God in the cool of the evening. They shared communion and Adam was a physical being and had a communion with God which he lost when he ate from the forbidden tree. God created *physical* things and said of them that they were *good*. Saying you dont believe we will have a recreated Eden does not prove whether we will not have physical bodies.


If everyone has to drink water from a river, or eat fruit from a tree, to stay alive, then how is that eternity? And if these things are not required to possess an eternity, then why even bother? Was it not Christ who said to the thief on the cross, "By this time tomorrow, you will be with me in paradise..." Sounded like a promise to me.
Joesorry I am not fully with you on your last point. How does our physical bodies affect all this.

basilfo
12-22-2007, 05:01 AM
Hi Abigail,
It may have been done in the above posts in this thread, but could you provide the chap/verse that moves you to understand the resurrected body to be physical (wholly or partly)? Thanks.

Dave

Abigail
12-22-2007, 05:35 AM
Well, how does that fit with this?
1 Corinthians 15:44-45 It is sown a natural [pseuchikos] body; it is raised a spiritual [pneumikos] body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul [pseuche]; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit [pneuma].
The parallel is obviously deliberate:

Adam: natural body and living soul
Christ: spiritual body and life giving spirit

We are promised a resurrection like Christ, that is, a spiritual body. That's the point of this thread, to understand the meaning of the natural vs. the spiritual bodies, right? I think we still have some work to do on that question.

We are told that the body without the spirit is dead: James 2:26 "for just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" Adam had no living spirit to pass on to us but only a natural body which dies, it is from Christ we get the spirit which will make the body alive, that IMO is the difference between the natural body and the spiritual ie the one is dying the other living. James 2:26 "faith without works is dead' could also be used to support that our resurrected body, if it never dies again, is proof of a quickened spirit. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 does say all flesh is not the same ie that to my mind says we could well have two types of flesh for men one with a quickened spirit and one without a quickened spirit, but the glories of those types are very different even as earth compared to heaven.


Yes, that verse is frequently used to support a fleshly resurrection. But its meaning is rather uncertain. For example, the 1917 JPS Tanakh says "And when after my skin this is destroyed, then without my flesh shall I see God." The reason for the uncertainty is because the word translated as "from my flesh" or "without my flesh" is mibassar, formed from the root basar (flesh) prefixed with a Mem to indicate the prepostition "from" - but it also can mean "without" in which case that verse acquires a very different meaning. It could be that way to account for both ie Christ saw God without His flesh (Luke 23:46)


But in any case, a single ambiguous line from the poetical book of Job is certainly not going to give us much light on the resurrection body compared with the large didactic exposition of 1 Corinthians 15.

Richard Both Job and Ezekiel have a lot of occurences of 'naked' has anyone ever had a look into that.

Abigail
12-22-2007, 05:41 AM
Hi Abigail,
It may have been done in the above posts in this thread, but could you provide the chap/verse that moves you to understand the resurrected body to be physical (wholly or partly)? Thanks.

DaveHi Basilfo

1 Corinthians 15 does it for me

TheForgiven
12-22-2007, 01:19 PM
Abigail, Dave, and Richard have all brought up some valid points; both sides in fact. I can debate against the resurrection of the body and make my points sound strong. At the same time, I could debate FOR the resurrection of the body and make is sound strong.

I think it's wise for me to declare a stalemate on this one because I'll be the first to tell you that I can't explain the mystery of the resurrection. I only know that there is one, so perhaps that's the more important aspect of salvation; to believe in the resurrection.

And I respect all of your opinions, but on this subject, I tend to get fearful on its discussion. So on this one, I'll simply conclude that I don't know

http://www.stanford.edu/~jianbo/Xanga/confusion.jpg

Joe

basilfo
12-22-2007, 03:26 PM
You know how you make a mental picture of what people look like and it turns out to be totally different when you finally see a picture? Joe, I had one of you and you know what..... it's exactly like the one you just posted!! :eek::D


You probably make a good point about beating this one up. I will continue to study and pray about it. You are a wise man Joseph.

Your bro,
Dave

basilfo
12-22-2007, 03:47 PM
Hi Basilfo

1 Corinthians 15 does it for me

Hi Abigail,

We'll have to leave it there I guess. When Paul says 'it is raised a spiritual body' in 1 Cor 15, that's good enough for me.

Thanks,
Dave

TheForgiven
12-22-2007, 07:05 PM
You know how you make a mental picture of what people look like and it turns out to be totally different when you finally see a picture? Joe, I had one of you and you know what..... it's exactly like the one you just posted!!

:clap2: Yea that was pretty good wasn't it? :lol: I do my best to make people smile.

All in love good friend...all in love.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-23-2007, 12:14 AM
You know how you make a mental picture of what people look like and it turns out to be totally different when you finally see a picture? Joe, I had one of you and you know what..... it's exactly like the one you just posted!! :eek::D
:lol: ROFL!!! :lol:


You probably make a good point about beating this one up. I will continue to study and pray about it. You are a wise man Joseph.

Your bro,
Dave
I agree that that the issues surrounding the meaning of "spiritual body" seem quite ambiguous and so we all are left scratching our heads like primates. And that's why I am very happy to ask other people to please explain what they think the Bible means on this point. After we get enough discordant answersit becomes pretty clear that no one has the right to call pretists "heretics" over a doctrine they can not even define!

It seems to me that the specific detailes of the Doctrine of the Resurrection are insufficiently clear to be used as a touchstone to discern the truth of falsehood of Full Preterism.

But I am still interested in understanding the meaning of "spiritual body."

Richard

MHz
12-23-2007, 02:50 AM
And then,
the people in the last part of Isa:65 would be the ones that live outside New Jerusalem in the new earth. They would be judged at the age of 120 years, with perfect parents, and grand-parents, etc. they would then be given eternal life. What they observed the ones who were over 120 do, they would then be able to do, forever. This group is 'the rest', they build houses etc., and have dominion over the other flesh in the new earth, like Eden was. Their numbers increase over eternity.

The other group that are 'blessed' (in the beginning of that chapter)are those that stay in that 'rather large' New Jerusalem. That would include everybody alive at Christ's would stay inside. The 144,000 sealed from Israel are said to follow Christ wherever He goes, they would seem to be inside, the Church would be alive before 'the rest', so they would also seem to be inside also. Maybe greeting those who come inside, like baptism of newborns, (their children since they do not increase in number). I would not bet against 'other flesh' (fowl, beasts of the field, etc.) having eternal life either.

To be a priest who can baptize newborns would be the same baptism it would be kinda of a better experience if you could actually have a body that could hold flesh. Book of life stuff.

Check out when Jesus was anointed in Jerusalem about 30 days after Mary gave birth. 30 days is required for purification by a mother who has had a son. A Priest in the Temple (there were a few good ones) was told to expect it, the popular story has Jesus still being in His place of birth 2 years after His birth), Bethlehem when they would have naturally returned to Joesph's home in Nazareth. If Herod's slaughter of the innocents (a prophecy fulfilled) was close to when Jesus was first anointed by a Priest then they would have gone straight to Egypt. If you really want to get soap-opera about Scripture, was the other Priest who saw this one who told Herod what the other Priest had said. The 'wise' men would have had to be in the city of birth within a month.

I'm sure you guys have studied these early times in quite some detail so you might be able to add some details I have missed.

Sooner or later we should also talk about fallen angels, do you have some archives on them, might save some time.

Wayne

PS I once was talking to a Christian who believed His birth was in Sept. instead of Dec. So no presents or such. I asked him if they believed life started at conception, answer yes. 9 months (or 28X9) earlier would have been pretty close to when He was conceived. About 30 years later He was baptized in the River Jordan, giving the time-line in John some validity in that it was a rather short period of time between returning from the wilderness and the 1st passover mentioned. Another time I never heard any reply if they started looking at Dec in a slightly different light.

TheForgiven
12-23-2007, 07:44 AM
And then,
the people in the last part of Isa:65 would be the ones that live outside New Jerusalem in the new earth. They would be judged at the age of 120 years, with perfect parents, and grand-parents, etc. they would then be given eternal life. What they observed the ones who were over 120 do, they would then be able to do, forever. This group is 'the rest', they build houses etc., and have dominion over the other flesh in the new earth, like Eden was. Their numbers increase over eternity.

The other group that are 'blessed' (in the beginning of that chapter)are those that stay in that 'rather large' New Jerusalem. That would include everybody alive at Christ's would stay inside.

Mhz? It appears you're still interpreting that New Jerusalem to be a physical house where the new flesh will abide. I thought we settled this already, and you're still unconvinced?


Revelation 21:
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.........

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

It's clear that Christ is married to the New Jerusalem. But who or what is Christ married to? A building, or the assembly (Those who are called out)?

Not the building, but the assembly.


1 Corinthians 3:
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the New Jerusalem is not a "rather large" building the resurrected saints will abide in. The New Jerusalem is the assembly themselves, and they are Christ's wife.

SO, once again, who or what is Christ married to? A building of stones, or the assembly of those he loves, i.e. the Church?

I have presented irrefutable evidence against the idea of a 1,500 miles tall, wide, and long squared building descending from heaven. The ball has been served and it's your turn brother MHz. :playball: What say you?

With love,

Joe

MHz
12-23-2007, 09:25 AM
. :playball: What say you?

Hi Joe,
Re:21:16: And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Re:21:17: And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

That would make the wall about 216ft thick, what are the two dimensions you come up with?

Wayne

Richard Amiel McGough
12-23-2007, 01:36 PM
Mhz? It appears you're still interpreting that New Jerusalem to be a physical house where the new flesh will abide. I thought we settled this already, and you're still unconvinced?

I'd like a straight answer on that too. Is not the text perfectly clear that the NJ is the Bride is the Church? If you (MHz) think we have erred in our interpretation, why not point out the error?

Richard

TheForgiven
12-23-2007, 04:07 PM
Hi Joe,
Re:21:16: And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Re:21:17: And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

That would make the wall about 216ft thick, what are the two dimensions you come up with?

Wayne

Okay Wayne, I read the dimensions, so I take it you believe the new Jerusalem is an actual city, made of gold with walls 216 feet thick and walls spanning one thousand five hundred miles tall and wide.

This means you believe Jesus married a building (or will marry a building). But why then does Paul say to the Corinthians that "WE" are God's building?


1 Corinthians 3:
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building.

I direct answer would suffice please. Is Christ married to walls or souls? I'm certain you understand that when a man and woman join together, they become one flesh and one spirit. The same applies to Christ and His Church. The two become one in marriage, and one body and one spirit.

Therefore, once again, is Christ married to a building or mankind?

Joe

Oh, and here's another question. Are people defined by the city, or is a city defined by the people? Your answer to that question will explain your interpretation of the New Jerusalem.

Rose
12-23-2007, 04:25 PM
Hi Everyone,

I’m going to present the things I do know about the Resurrection, then the parts that are still ambiguous will be clearer to see.

1)First we do know that Jesus is the Resurrection, and the life.
2)We know that Jesus is the firstfruits of those who sleep (He is the first one to rise from the dead). 1 Cor. 15:20
3)There is a resurrection of the dead. John 5:29
4)Those who sleep in the Lord, will be raised in the resurrection at Christ’s coming. 1 Cor. 15: 20,23
5)Death of the body came by sin, because of Adam’s fall. 1 Cor. 15:21
6)From Adam we bear the image of the earthly, through Christ we will all bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor. 15:49
7)The order of resurrection is Christ first, then those that are Christs at His coming. 1 Cor. 15:23
8)The fleshly, earthly, natural body is raised in the resurrection a spiritual, heavenly body. 1 Cor. 15:44
9)We shall not all sleep in death forever, but those of us in Christ shall be changed from our natural bodies that are corruptible, to a spiritual body that is incorruptible.
10)Then we will be raised at Christ’s coming, which is before the end. 1 Cor.15:23-24
11)When He shall appear we shall be like Him. 1 John 3:2
12)From Scripture, it says that we will be raised in the resurrection when Christ comes, and that He is coming before the end, and that the end will be when Christ has delivered the Kingdom up to God, and put all enemies under His feet.
13) The last of those enemies is death,and we know that through Christ death is swallowed up in victory, when corruption puts on incorruption. 1 Cor. 15:54
14)Christ being raised from the dead, dies no more. Christ now has dominion over death. Rom. 6:9


Now to summarize all the points I have made into a brief, hopefully clear statement.

We know that there is a resurrection of the dead because Jesus told us there is. He was the first to rise from the dead because the order of the resurrection is Christ first, then those who are dead at His coming, and finally those who are alive. Up until the point of Christ’s resurrection, all people who died were in a state of waiting. After Christ came, and rose from the dead, He said all those who were dead in Him would be raised up with spiritual, incorruptible bodies at His coming. He said His coming would be before the end, and that would be when the Kingdom has been delivered up to God, and the last enemy, which is death was put under His feet. Christ has conquered death, and has dominion over it.

Now we must ask the question: Has death been conquered, and put under Christ’s feet? If so, then that means that the time of the end has come, and the Kingdom has been delivered up to God. And if the time of the end has come, then Christ’s coming has occurred, and the resurrection of those that were dead in Christ has occurred, and they are now with the Lord.
So the words of Paul are now applicable to us “to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord” 2 Cor. 5:8.

I would like to address one issue that has many Christians concerned about stating that the resurrection has already happened in 70 A.D.. That is the teaching of Hymeneus and Philetus in 2 Tim. 2:18, and their stating that the resurrection had already happened, and causing some to lose their faith. What they were probably telling folks is that they missed out on the resurrection because they were still alive, and that Christ had already come and they were left behind. So these poor souls lost their faith because they figured they had lost their chance, and now it was too late. We do know from Scripture that at the time Hymeneus, and Philetus were teaching their false doctrine, the resurrection had not yet occurred. But whether the resurrection occurred in 70 A.D..... or is still yet to come, we know there is a resurrection, and when we die in Christ we go to be with Him. Praise God!

Rose

MHz
12-23-2007, 05:42 PM
I direct answer would suffice please.
Sure Joe, if I was gathered to Christ at His second coming, either by resurrection or by being alive at that time I should expect to be 'His servant' as in the set of verses below, Vs:3 in particular, I would also expect to have a forehead.
Re:22:1: And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Re:22:2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Re:22:3: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Re:22:4: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

From your POV who are the servants since you are the building?



Oh, and here's another question. Are people defined by the city, or is a city defined by the people? Your answer to that question will explain your interpretation of the New Jerusalem.

In this case the city has certain restrictions on who can enter into it,
Re:21:27: And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I can't recall where God or Christ has ever referred to a person as 'it'. The Church would have individual names written in His book of life.

Wayne

TheForgiven
12-23-2007, 05:55 PM
Sure Joe, if I was gathered to Christ at His second coming, either by resurrection or by being alive at that time I should expect to be 'His servant' as in the set of verses below, Vs:3 in particular, I would also expect to have a forehead.
Re:22:1: And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Re:22:2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Re:22:3: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Re:22:4: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

You are His servant, whether on earth or in the heavens. Paul says, "Therefore, the life we now live, we live unto God...sin no longer has dominion over us...."

Whether we are in the flesh or in the spirit, we live unto God.


From your POV who are the servants since you are the building?

Isn't that obvious who the servants are? His children....all of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
Oh, and here's another question. Are people defined by the city, or is a city defined by the people? Your answer to that question will explain your interpretation of the New Jerusalem.
In this case the city has certain restrictions on who can enter into it,
Re:21:27: And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I can't recall where God or Christ has ever referred to a person as 'it'. The Church would have individual names written in His book of life.

You should be able to recall when Paul refers to his people as His creation. Paul himself said, "You are God's building...." though he wasn't referring to a physical building, but a new creation. What is a Church? A Church is defined as an assembly of those who are called out. This gathering, or assembly, is what makes up the Church. Your definition, however, has the opposite meaning. You believe a city or a Church defines the person. In the same way, you define a Jew if he's born in an earth-based city. But that's not the case at all. Paul says a Jew is a Jew who is born inwardly, from the adoption as sons through His Holy Spirit. And a Spirit does not abide in cities or building, any less will we abide in a physical city made of brick and stone.

You still have not answered my question, so I'll ask again. Is Christ married to the building or the assembly? Why is that difficult for you? I'm sure you have an answer and I'd like to hear it.

Is Christ married to a building or an assembly of people?

Joe

TheForgiven
12-26-2007, 08:40 PM
:focus:

Friends, I read the story of Polycarp again and I just can't find myself to disbelieve in our bodily resurrection. Please read Polycarp's last prayer before he was burned alive, resulting in a miraculous Martyrdom:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xiv.html


Chapter XIV.—The prayer of Polycarp
They did not nail him then, but simply bound him. And he, placing his hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable burnt-offering unto God, looked up to heaven, and said,

“O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before thee, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day before Thee as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as Thou, the ever-truthful God, hast foreordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.”



HIS DEATH
When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we perceived such a sweet odor [coming from the pile], as if frankincense or some such precious spices had been smoking there.

What an awesome and faithful man of God, who remained faithful even to the burning fires! :prophet:

Polycarp also shows in his letter to the Philippians on how the Gnostics were corrupting the Churches by teaching there was no resurrection. Now given the facts that Gnostics taught of a spiritual resurrection, I must conclude that the resurrection Polycarp here was talking about is the resurrection of our bodies. Why? Because Gnostics taught that only the spirit is raised after death, and the body dies and decays. But Polycarp states here that these heretics were teaching there was no resurrection. These are the same heretics St. John warned about....please read below:


“For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;” and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.

Gnostics taught that Jesus did not die on the cross, but only His body did. In some of their writings, they tell the story, as shown in the Devinci Code, that Christ Spirit left His body and watched as they tortured Him on the Cross, and supposedly He laughs as they attempt to Kill Him. He is also supposedly standing next to one of the Apostles and making a joke of the entire thing. Such Heresy!

Anyways, it's clear that the resurrection of our bodies was strong in the Church. And even though Polycarp was not an Apostle, I can't discount him as anything less because of his bravery, his vision of his death, and the faithfulness of his life towards Christ. Therefore, he believed in the resurrection of our bodies, so how can be deny it?

Your thoughts friends?

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-26-2007, 09:19 PM
:focus:

Friends, I read the story of Polycarp again and I just can't find myself to disbelieve in our bodily resurrection. Please read Polycarp's last prayer before he was burned alive, resulting in a miraculous Martyrdom:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xiv.html


Chapter XIV.—The prayer of Polycarp
They did not nail him then, but simply bound him. And he, placing his hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable burnt-offering unto God, looked up to heaven, and said,

'O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before thee, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day before Thee as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as Thou, the ever-truthful God, hast foreordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.'

What an awesome and faithful man of God, who remained faithful even to the burning fires! :prophet:

Amen to the praise of the faithful martyrs Joe! And that pic is perfect since he was over 80 years old!

But as for your highligted red words - resurrection of both body and soul - there is no question about that. Everyone agrees because the Bible says the body will be a bodily resurrection. The only question concerns the meaning of the "spiritual body" that will be raised.


Polycarp also shows in his letter to the Philippians on how the Gnostics were corrupting the Churches by teaching there was no resurrection. Now given the facts that Gnostics taught of a spiritual resurrection, I must conclude that the resurrection Polycarp here was talking about is the resurrection of our bodies. Why? Because Gnostics taught that only the spirit is raised after death, and the body dies and decays. But Polycarp states here that these heretics were teaching there was no resurrection. These are the same heretics St. John warned about....please read below:

'For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;' and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.

But that's not really relevant is it? No body is denying the resurrection of the judgment. We are simply asking what the Bible means by "spiritual body" and whether the resurrection could have happened in the first century with all believers thereafter being resurrected upon the moment of their death "and so they shall ever be with the Lord." There is a hint of this in Polycarp because he was praying to "have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life." See that? Was he anticipating an immediate resurrection in heaven upon his carnal death?


Gnostics taught that Jesus did not die on the cross, but only His body did. In some of their writings, they tell the story, as shown in the Devinci Code, that Christ Spirit left His body and watched as they tortured Him on the Cross, and supposedly He laughs as they attempt to Kill Him. He is also supposedly standing next to one of the Apostles and making a joke of the entire thing. Such Heresy!

Yes that's obvious heresy! But ... that we can not let that heresy cause us to deviate from the truth even if the truth can be misrepresented by contentious futurists who may try to twist the truth to look like heresy to win the debate with preterists. The preterist doctrine of an ongoing resurrection that began in the past does not qualify for the label of heresy per 2 Tim 2:18 because it can not overthrow anyone's faith because it does not teach that anyone has "missed" the resurrection.

It seems like the big questions are these: Is the "spiritual body" resurrected here on earth, or in heaven where it will be forever with the Lord? If the resurrection happened in the past, should we expect to see resurrected saints running around on planet earth?


Anyways, it's clear that the resurrection of our bodies was strong in the Church.

Of course it was. But what did they mean by "resurrection of our bodies?"


And even though Polycarp was not an Apostle, I can't discount him as anything less because of his bravery, his vision of his death, and the faithfulness of his life towards Christ. Therefore, he believed in the resurrection of our bodies, so how can be deny it?

Again, no one is denying the resurrection of our bodies. We are asking what did Paul mean by the phrase "spiritual body" and if a large-scale resurrection happened in the past, should we expect to see the heavenly spiritual bodies down here on earth?

I think the answer is obviously "no" because Paul distinguished between the earthly natural body and the resurrected heavenly spiritual body.

Richard

Rose
12-26-2007, 09:39 PM
Thanks Joe, for posting the quote from Polycarp :thumb:


The prayer of Polycarp:
They did not nail him then, but simply bound him. And he, placing his hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable burnt-offering unto God, looked up to heaven, and said,

'O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before thee, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life , both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day before Thee as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as Thou, the ever-truthful God, hast foreordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.'What caught my attention, is the statement Polycarp made of his going "to the resurrection of eternal life". The way he states it implies that the resurrection is what he is going to..... its what happens to our mortal bodies so we can enter into eternal life.

If Polycarp was martyred in the 2nd century, and he expected to go to the resurrection of eternal life: could that mean the resurrection already happened?

Rose

TheForgiven
12-27-2007, 10:38 AM
Again, no one is denying the resurrection of our bodies. We are asking what did Paul mean by the phrase "spiritual body" and if a large-scale resurrection happened in the past, should we expect to see the heavenly spiritual bodies down here on earth?

I think the answer is obviously "no" because Paul distinguished between the earthly natural body and the resurrected heavenly spiritual body.

Richard

This is beginning to drive me crazy. :smash: Reading all the lenghy letters of the early fathers is just too much. Although I do not agree with Papias or Irenaeus, I do believe in the words of Polycarp because of his faithful Martyrdom, and the many who turned to Christ because of his faithfulness and bravery.

I think what Paul is saying about the resurrection is about transformation, from earthly to spiritual power. What is earthly has a time limit and will eventually die. But when our bodies are transformed into the image of the incorruptable God, Jesus Christ, we become clothed with our heavenly dwelling.

Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.." indicating that we are not raised as flesh and blood, but as spiritual beings of power. This does not imply a ghost-like appearance, but a body of power, able to be anywhere at any time, and most importantly, no death or pain....otherwise, I'm certain Jesus would have felt quite a bit of discomfort when Thomas thrust his fingers in the apparent wounds of Christ.

The resurrection is about transformation, not substitution. I think that's where we're getting confused at.

Polycarp believed in a future resurrection of the Saints, but also states in his letter to the Philippians, that the Apostles and those with him are currently reining with Christ in the heavens, indicating that Christ kept his promise to return for them. The rest of us since that time will be raised in the future, after all rule has finally been abolished. As we can see, not all rule has been abolished, for there are nations which still reject the Messiah. It's my personal opinion that China is about to go through a transformation with the Greek Orthodox Church setting up perishes there, thanks to the Russian arabs forcing them to flee. And Saudi Arabia will present the largest challenge.

Then again, these are my own personal opinions, and I'll be the first to tell everyone that I could most certainly be wrong. But I'm convinced Brethren and Sisters that the resurrection involves our bodies, and our earthly bodies will be transformed into the new heavenly spiritual body.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-27-2007, 11:25 AM
This is beginning to drive me crazy. :smash: Reading all the lenghy letters of the early fathers is just too much. Although I do not agree with Papias or Irenaeus, I do believe in the words of Polycarp because of his faithful Martyrdom, and the many who turned to Christ because of his faithfulness and bravery.

That's great! But doesn't the problem rest entirely on the issue of whether the resurrection is "of this world" or in the "heavenlies?" Did Polycarp expect to be walking around in this physical earth, or in heaven with Christ? And even if he did have a carnal view of the resurrection, does that mean he was correct about everything? It took Peter and Paul many years to understand that they were free from the Torah. And it tooks the disciples some time to realize that God's plan had nothing to do with "restoring" the carnal kingdom to carnal Israel.


I think what Paul is saying about the resurrection is about transformation, from earthly to spiritual power. What is earthly has a time limit and will eventually die. But when our bodies are transformed into the image of the incorruptable God, Jesus Christ, we become clothed with our heavenly dwelling.

You mean clothed down here on carnal earth in heavenly bodies? :confused2:


Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.." indicating that we are not raised as flesh and blood, but as spiritual beings of power. This does not imply a ghost-like appearance, but a body of power, able to be anywhere at any time, and most importantly, no death or pain....otherwise, I'm certain Jesus would have felt quite a bit of discomfort when Thomas thrust his fingers in the apparent wounds of Christ.

Christ was a special case. I don't think the "pain" we won't feel is speaking of not going "ouch" if we smashed our finger with a hammer. I think its speaking about the pain of separation from God due to sin. That's the Gospel. Everything must be read in light of the Gospel. Misplaced literalism leads to gross misinterpretations. Pain is one region on the multidimensional continuum of sensations. Or what - are we going to be numb for eternity? Yo, man! I don't wanna feel no pain. Gimme more of that novacaine!" I don't think that's what it means at all. If we can't feel physical pain then our feelings would not be complete.


The resurrection is about transformation, not substitution. I think that's where we're getting confused at.

What does that mean? How do you "transform" something that doesn't exist?


Then again, these are my own personal opinions, and I'll be the first to tell everyone that I could most certainly be wrong. But I'm convinced Brethren and Sisters that the resurrection involves our bodies, and our earthly bodies will be transformed into the new heavenly spiritual body.

Joe
Yeah, on this issue we all must be willing to be wrong. The Bible is not perfectly clear on this point, and different statements come from the early church.

The big question is whether or not the resurrection could have happened in the first century, and how that impacts the other prophecies that were fulfilled. I don't see any big problem for full preterism because the resurrection could have happened "in the heavenlies" with no violence to any biblical doctrines. Therefore, this doctrine can not be used to discern the truth or falsehood of preterism, which is why it came up in the first place.

Richard

TheForgiven
12-27-2007, 02:32 PM
If we accept that the resurrection involves only our spirits, and not the body, then I suppose that Full Preterism is the choice of all eschatology's. However, there is a danger in supporting Full Preterism, namely because the Gnostics also taught in a spiritual resurrection only. On the other hand, Full Preterism believes that our spirits depart the earthly body and will be provided new heavenly bodies.

Your question about eternal bodies abiding on the earth has merit, as I often used that argument in the past. If you read the letters of Barnabus and Polycarp, they both speak of awaiting a New world, which they believe begins on the 8th day, after all rule has been abolished and sin no longer has dominion.

My only problem with Full Preterism is the 1000 year reign, which they say was completed in 70 AD, and the resurrection. We can't logically say that the Beast (Rome) was destroyed in the first century, for Roman power and persecution flourished even beyond the first century. My time-line brings the Roman government against the Church, to an end in 323 AD, when Christianity had over-taken the government through plowshares and pruning hooks; that is to say, the planting of seeds (God's word) and the examples of Martyrdom and faith in Jesus. After that time, it seems, the miraculous events disappeared, and no other stories were recorded.

There was a story in the 14th century of Joan of Arc, who supposedly had visions from God about the English being defeated by the French in a 7 year war. She died a martyrs death through the fire, and the Roman Church of England became fearful. After a few centuries, she was removed from being labeled as a heretic and changed to a Saint. In her story, an angel comes to her and talks with her about king Charles of France....okay, I'm drifting again.

It's very easy to embrace full preterism, but we have to be careful.

Joe

MHz
12-27-2007, 03:01 PM
We can't logically say that the Beast (Rome) was destroyed in the first century, for Roman power and persecution flourished even beyond the first century. My time-line brings the Roman government against the Church, to an end in 323 AD, when Christianity had over-taken the government through plowshares and pruning hooks; that is to say, the planting of seeds (God's word) and the examples of Martyrdom and faith in Jesus. After that time, it seems, the miraculous events disappeared, and no other stories were recorded.

From 323AD onward didn't the clergy usually travel around with the 'soldiers'? In the voyage around the world, by Europe, weren't the missionaries teaching one thing while the ones that owned the boats were sailing back overloaded with 'treasures'. I hardly think you'll find that kind of conduct promoted by Jesus's teachings.
The Church has never been slack in swinging the sword, even on their own. Today it would be not be that much different from Rome's time, the soldiers receive orders from either a permanent ruling 'family' or 'various elected officials from the general public'. The Church hasn't been all that effective in humanitarian efforts either. More harm in the long-run vrs. any short-time gain.

On the time-line thing. You gave about 300 years for Rome being a political empire. Is that supposed to be the 42 months in Revelation?

Richard Amiel McGough
12-27-2007, 04:45 PM
If we accept that the resurrection involves only our spirits, and not the body, then I suppose that Full Preterism is the choice of all eschatology's.

Why do you keep thinking that our "spiritual bodies" are not "bodily?" I see a major confusion here on terminology. I never suggested anything like "the resurrection involves only our spirits." Where did you get that idea?


However, there is a danger in supporting Full Preterism, namely because the Gnostics also taught in a spiritual resurrection only. On the other hand, Full Preterism believes that our spirits depart the earthly body and will be provided new heavenly bodies.

Eactly. "Heavenly body" does not necessarily mean "spiritual resurrection only." And besides, it seems that no one yet is clear about what gets resurrected anyway. The body that is annihilated can not be "resurrected" in a literal sense (like the body of Jesus) because it doesn't exist anymore. So we can not use every detail of Christ's resurrection as normative for all beliefers because that would be false. So before we start worrying about Gnosticism, we should establish the BIBLICAL doctrine of the Resurrection. Though their testimony is helpful, we do not get our doctrine from the beliefs of early Christians. We get it from the Bible. Is there anything in full preterism that contradicts anything in the Bible? That is the question.


Your question about eternal bodies abiding on the earth has merit, as I often used that argument in the past.

I think so too. 1 Cor 15 contrasts the earthly/natural body with the heavenly/spriitual body. There is nothing "gnostic" in that comparison. We should follow it.


If you read the letters of Barnabus and Polycarp, they both speak of awaiting a New world, which they believe begins on the 8th day, after all rule has been abolished and sin no longer has dominion.

Yes, and the apostles once thought that God was going to "restore again the kingdom to Israel." There opinions were not "inspire." Martin Luther thought the Pope was the antichrist and the "end of the world" would happen in his lifetime. We can not establish doctrine on people's opinions no matter how "great" the person was as a Christian. Sola Scriptura!


My only problem with Full Preterism is the 1000 year reign, which they say was completed in 70 AD, and the resurrection.

Yes, some preterists say it was completed in 70 AD. But why not have it be the Church age? Perhaps we just don't know! And frankly, it doesn't matter what you believe about the 1000 years so long as you don't teach it as doctrine, because GOD ALMIGHTY did not confirm its meaning with any other clear Scriptures. Therefore, the 1000 years can not be used to discern between eschatologies, and is best left untouched in these discussions.


We can't logically say that the Beast (Rome) was destroyed in the first century, for Roman power and persecution flourished even beyond the first century. My time-line brings the Roman government against the Church, to an end in 323 AD, when Christianity had over-taken the government through plowshares and pruning hooks; that is to say, the planting of seeds (God's word) and the examples of Martyrdom and faith in Jesus. After that time, it seems, the miraculous events disappeared, and no other stories were recorded.


That's interesting. So let's see how that affects our understanding of Revelation:
Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
So what's wrong with understanding that as telling us that the beast and false prophet were judged by God? So what if it took another 200 years? Are there any time markers in that context?

Of course, I can see how the full preterist might want to continue the story sequentially past the destruction of Jerusalem in Rev 18, but that is not necessary as far as I can see. The scene moves to the celebration in heaven, and a symbolic representation of the Victory of Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords. I don't see any problem here. But I'm probably missing something, so I'd be much obliged if you could point it out. :thumb:


It's very easy to embrace full preterism, but we have to be careful.

Joe
I agree that we should be "careful" about anything assumed, whether preterism or futuris. Indeed, I'm not even dogmatic about "everything" in the whole Bible fulfilled. My point is that the primary prophetic Scritpures which are integrated around Daniel, Revelation and the Olvet Discourse have been fulfillled.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-27-2007, 04:49 PM
The Church has never been slack in swinging the sword, even on their own.

I think you may have confused the "Church = the Body of Christ" with the "Church = the socio-political entity that bases their claim of authority on Christ." They are not the same entity.


On the time-line thing. You gave about 300 years for Rome being a political empire. Is that supposed to be the 42 months in Revelation?
Wasn't that how long they were supposed to be trampling Jerusalem? Where does it say the empire lasted 42 months?
Richard

TheForgiven
12-28-2007, 08:21 AM
From 323AD onward didn't the clergy usually travel around with the 'soldiers'? In the voyage around the world, by Europe, weren't the missionaries teaching one thing while the ones that owned the boats were sailing back overloaded with 'treasures'. I hardly think you'll find that kind of conduct promoted by Jesus's teachings.
The Church has never been slack in swinging the sword, even on their own. Today it would be not be that much different from Rome's time, the soldiers receive orders from either a permanent ruling 'family' or 'various elected officials from the general public'. The Church hasn't been all that effective in humanitarian efforts either. More harm in the long-run vrs. any short-time gain.

On the time-line thing. You gave about 300 years for Rome being a political empire. Is that supposed to be the 42 months in Revelation?

MHz, I'm not fond of the Roman Catholic Church, but allow me to please point out your mistake in judgment friend. And please, understand this is done in love, and not a harsh or bitter attitude. I do this solely in love.

There were many problems with certain RCC's which existed. But not all of them are the same. Using Protestants as an example, we have the Jim Bakers, the David Koresh, and many other false examples of witness. And these were all connected to a form of Protestant. But does this mean all Protestant denominations are bad? No friend, they are not. Those who led by poor example are exactly that; poor examples. But this does not mean the entire RCC was like that.

Just who are we speaking of here? Was it not the Church of England and Spain that performed these things? I assume you're talking about Napoleon, and many other sailors who traveled abroad to collect gifts from foreign nations in an attempt to bring these back to the king OF ENGLAND. This does not mean that the French Church was evil, nor the German, and so forth.

Now I need you to consider something very important. If we try to show that Protestant's are the correct line of Churches, let me show you how failing that idea is. Jesus said:

"a house divided against itself cannot stand""

Protestants represent division after division, and not just against the history of the RCC, but even amongst themselves. But look at the RCC or even the Greek Orthodox Church. Look how unified they are compared to the Protestants. There may be a few differences between American RCC or Orthodox services, but the general idea and practices are the same.

Now lets take a look at Protestants. Look what divides them, and here are their issues:

1. Baptism (Water)
2. Eternal Security
3. Speaking in Tongues
4. Sunday Sabbath
5. Communion frequency (some weekly, monthly, or annually)
6. Musical instruments
7. Charismatic or calm
8. Bible version (Which Bible we use)
9. Grace or Works, or both
10. Female Ministers
11. Tithes (10 percent of your pay or giving from your heart)

All of these issues are divisions between the Protestants and their are probably more which I have not listed. Now I ask you, how do you suppose that the RCC is so evil, yet you did not even look at centuries of Protestant division? One bad egg does not make the entire next bad. Think about that.

And just for the record, I'm normally a Protestant who is considering joining the Greek Orthodox Church.

Joe

TheForgiven
12-28-2007, 08:29 AM
Why do you keep thinking that our "spiritual bodies" are not "bodily?" I see a major confusion here on terminology. I never suggested anything like "the resurrection involves only our spirits." Where did you get that idea?

The general idea of Full Preterism is that our spirits are raised into heaven, and are (or will be) joined with a new heavenly tent. This means that our earthly bodies are buried and decayed and remain that way. The problem with that idea is that Matthew 27 specifically shows that a resurrection took place which involved the tombs breaking open. Now if our spirits are raised and we are given new heavenly bodies, then why the tomb breaking? If these new heavenly bodies are in heaven, and our spirits are raised to join with our new tents "in heaven", then why the breaking open of the tombs? It seems to me that the bodies of the old Patriarchs would have remained within the ground, although we don't know if they were or not, so I'm merely speaking hypothetical here.

I hope you understand my concerns and confusion brother Richard. There is a letter written from Pontius to Caesar asking him of what to do about this massive resurrection which took place. I'll find it and post it on here; it describes exactly what they saw.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2007, 09:38 AM
Why do you keep thinking that our "spiritual bodies" are not "bodily?" I see a major confusion here on terminology. I never suggested anything like "the resurrection involves only our spirits." Where did you get that idea?
The general idea of Full Preterism is that our spirits are raised into heaven, and are (or will be) joined with a new heavenly tent. This means that our earthly bodies are buried and decayed and remain that way. The problem with that idea is that Matthew 27 specifically shows that a resurrection took place which involved the tombs breaking open. Now if our spirits are raised and we are given new heavenly bodies, then why the tomb breaking? If these new heavenly bodies are in heaven, and our spirits are raised to join with our new tents "in heaven", then why the breaking open of the tombs? It seems to me that the bodies of the old Patriarchs would have remained within the ground, although we don't know if they were or not, so I'm merely speaking hypothetical here.

The "tomb breaking" was necessary to demonstrate the resurrection. If the tombs didn't break open how would anyone know a resurrection had occurred? And where do you think those "resurrected" saints are today? Did they die again? If so, then their "resurrection" was more like a resuscitation and certainly not to be confused with the resurrection promised to believers in 1 Cor 15. But if they didn't die again, and were truly resurrected with imperishable bodies like those we receive at our resurrection, where are they now? Hiding in a cave? Or taken up BODILY into heaven? And where is Jesus right now? Does he have a body? Is He in heaven?

So Jesus is in heaven with His resurrection body, the same body that He showed His disciples after His resurrection. So we know that there is no need for a manifested EARTHLY physcial body to save ourselves from Gnosticism.


I hope you understand my concerns and confusion brother Richard.

Understand? Absolutely! This is not a simple matter. It is filled with many assumptions that may not be correct, and need to be evaluated.


There is a letter written from Pontius to Caesar asking him of what to do about this massive resurrection which took place. I'll find it and post it on here; it describes exactly what they saw.

Joe
That sounds like a VERY interesting letter bro!

Richard

Abigail
12-28-2007, 12:19 PM
The "tomb breaking" was necessary to demonstrate the resurrection. If the tombs didn't break open how would anyone know a resurrection had occurred?

Reading the account in Matthew it gives the sense that the bodies were raised at the time the veil was split, but that it was only after the resurrection that they entered the 'holy city' and appeared to many

Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2007, 12:29 PM
Reading the account in Matthew it gives the sense that the bodies were raised at the time the veil was split, but that it was only after the resurrection that they entered the 'holy city' and appeared to many
Let's look:

Matthew 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Clearly they came out of their graves after his resurrection, so if they were resurrected when Christ died it would seem that they then had to wait three days in their graves before being allowed out. That's not a very plesant thought, and it doesn't make sense to me that they should rise before Christ's own resurrection.

Richard

MHz
12-28-2007, 01:13 PM
Joe, why did you think I was just referring to the RCC?

Abigail
12-28-2007, 01:18 PM
Let's look:

Matthew 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Clearly they came out of their graves after his resurrection, so if they were resurrected when Christ died it would seem that they then had to wait three days in their graves before being allowed out. That's not a very plesant thought, and it doesn't make sense to me that they should rise before Christ's own resurrection.

Richard


Well, it might not be so silly if it is understood as the tombs cracking open and their bones rose up to the surface ie the bones were exposed (ever seen a flood in a graveyard) , and then those bones actually resurrecting after Christ's resurrection ...obviously the greek would have to allow for this understanding

Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2007, 01:37 PM
Well, it might not be so silly if it is understood as the tombs cracking open and their bones rose up to the surface ie the bones were exposed (ever seen a flood in a graveyard) , and then those bones actually resurrecting after Christ's resurrection ...obviously the greek would have to allow for this understanding
I didn't mean to imply "silly" so much as "just doesn't make sense to me."

As for the bones floating to the surface and then being resurrected ... yes, the Greek would "allow" for it, in the sense that it doesn't contradict that idea, but neither does it support it so I don't see why we would be considering it. Is there a reason it is important to have their resurrection happen before Christ's?

Richard

Abigail
12-28-2007, 01:54 PM
I didn't mean to imply "silly" so much as "just doesn't make sense to me."

As for the bones floating to the surface and then being resurrected ... yes, the Greek would "allow" for it, in the sense that it doesn't contradict that idea, but neither does it support it so I don't see why we would be considering it. Is there a reason it is important to have their resurrection happen before Christ's?

Richard

No I understand you meant 'doesnt make sense' and I was agreeing that it would not make a lot of sense to have people resurrecting and then hanging about in the tombs until after Christ Himself rose. However if the earthquake that happened at the same time the veil tore, shook the earth it would not be unrealistic for tombs to crack open and their, still dead and dry, contents to become exposed. My point was that maybe the tomb contents spilled out visibly for people and then those same saintly bones actually resurrected (ie became living and fresh again), but only after Christ's bodily resurrection. How then would their actual resurrections preceed Christ's own?

Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2007, 02:14 PM
No I understand you meant 'doesnt make sense' and I was agreeing that it would not make a lot of sense to have people resurrecting and then hanging about in the tombs until after Christ Himself rose. However if the earthquake that happened at the same time the veil tore, shook the earth it would not be unrealistic for tombs to crack open and their, still dead and dry, contents to become exposed. My point was that maybe the tomb contents spilled out visibly for people and then those same saintly bones actually resurrected (ie became living and fresh again), but only after Christ's bodily resurrection. How then would their actual resurrections preceed Christ's own?
OK - that makes sense. I didn't have the whole picture of what you were getting at.

So getting back to your original question, how does Matthew "give the sense that the bodies were raised at the time the veil was split?"

Richard

Abigail
12-28-2007, 02:48 PM
OK - that makes sense. I didn't have the whole picture of what you were getting at.

So getting back to your original question, how does Matthew "give the sense that the bodies were raised at the time the veil was split?"

Richard

Well, you say to you the reading does not give that sense. To me I thought it was ambiguous and could give the sense the bodies were 'raised' (as in exposed) at the time of the veil tearing. I was keen to hear other peoples' takes on those few verses. I would be just as happy to be shown if the reading could *only* be understood as you understand it ...it is not like I have any preconceived idea of why it has to be understood a certain way

TheForgiven
12-28-2007, 03:01 PM
Brother Richard,

I finally found the letter by Pontius Pilot to Caesar involving the crucifixion of Jesus and the Matthew 27 resurrection.

http://www.bsmvt.org/pilate.html

THE REPORT OF PONTIUS PILATE, PROCURATOR OF JUDAEA SENT TO ROME TO TIBERIUS CAESAR

To the most mighty, venerable, awful, most divine, the august,--Pilatus Pontius, the governor of the East: I have to report to thy reverence, through this writing of mine, being seized with great trembling and fear, O most mighty emperor, the conjuncture of the present times, as the end of these things has shown. For while I, my lord, according to the commandment of thy clemency, was discharging the duties of my government, which is one of the cities of the East, Jerusalem by name, in which is built the temple of the Jewish nation, all the multitude of the Jews came together, and delivered to me a certain man named Jesus, bringing against him many and groundless charges; and they were not able to convict him in anything. And one heresy of theirs against him was, that he said that the Sabbath was not their right rest. And that man wrought many cures, in addition to good works. He made the blind see; he cleansed lepers; he raised the dead; he healed paralytics who could not move at all, except that they only had their voice, and the joining of their bones; and he gave them the power of walking about and running, commanding them by a single word. And another mightier work he did, which was strange even with our gods: he raised up a dead man, Lazarus, who had been dead four days, by a single word ordering the dead man to be raised, although his body was already corrupted by the worms that grow in wounds; and that ill-smelling body lying in the tomb he ordered to run; and as a bridegroom from the bridal chamber, so he came forth out of the tomb, filled with exceeding fragrance. And some that were cruelly vexed by demons, and had their dwellings in deserts, and ate the flesh of their own limbs, and lived along with reptiles and wild beasts, he made to be dwellers in cities in their own houses, and by a word he rendered them sound-minded; and he made those that were troubled by unclean spirits to be intelligent and reputable; and sending away the demons in them into a herd of swine, he suffocated them in the sea. Another man, again, who had a withered hand, and lived in sorrow, and had not even the half of his body sound, he rendered sound by a single word. And a woman that had a flow of blood for many years, so that, in consequence of the flowing of her blood, all the joinings of her bones appeared, and were transparent like glass; and assuredly all the physicians had left her without hope, and had not cleansed her, for there was not in her a single hope of health: once, then, as Jesus was passing by, she took hold of the fringe of his clothes behind, and that same hour the power of her body was completely restored, and she became whole, as if nothing were the matter with her, and she began to run swiftly to her own city Paneas.

And these things indeed were so. And the Jews gave information that Jesus did these things on the Sabbath. And I also ascertained that the miracles done by him were greater than any which the gods whom we worship could do.

Him then Herod and Archelaus and Philip, and Annas and Caiaphas, with all the people, delivered to me to try him. And as many were exciting an insurrection against me, I ordered him to be crucified.

And when he had been crucified, there was darkness over the whole earth, the sun having been completely hidden, and the heaven appearing dark though it was day, so that the stars appeared, but had at the same time their brightness darkened, as I suppose your reverence is not ignorant of, because in all the world they lighted lamps from the sixth hour until evening. And the moon, being like blood, did not shine the whole night, and yet she happened to be at the full. And the stars also, and Orion, made a lament about the Jews, on account of the wickedness that had been done by them.

And on the first of the week, about the third hour of the night, the sun was seen such as it had never at any time shone, and all the heaven was lighted up. And as lightnings come on in winter, so majestic men of indescribable splendour of dress and of glory appeared in the air, and an innumerable multitude of angels crying out, and saying: Glory in the highest to God, and on earth peace, among men goodwill: come up out of Hades, ye who have been kept in slavery in the underground regions of Hades. And at their voice all the mountains and hills were shaken, and the rocks were burst asunder; and great chasms were made in the earth, so that also what was in the abyss appeared. And there were seen in that terror dead men raised up, as the Jews that saw them said: We have seen Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, that died two thousand five hundred years ago; and we have seen Noah manifestly in the body. And all the multitude walked about, and sang praises to God with a loud voice, saying: The Lord our God that has risen from the dead has brought to life all the dead, and has plundered Hades, and put him to death.

All that night therefore, my lord, O king, the light ceased not. And many of the Jews died, and were engulphed and swallowed up in the chasms in that night, so that not even their bodies appeared. Those, I say, of the Jews suffered that had spoken against Jesus. And one synagogue was left in Jerusalem, since all those synagogues that had been against Jesus were engulphed.

From that fear, then, being in perplexity, and seized with much trembling, at that same hour I ordered what had been done by them all to be written; and I have reported it to thy mightiness.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2007, 03:25 PM
Well, you say to you the reading does not give that sense. To me I thought it was ambiguous and could give the sense the bodies were 'raised' (as in exposed) at the time of the veil tearing. I was keen to hear other peoples' takes on those few verses. I would be just as happy to be shown if the reading could *only* be understood as you understand it ...it is not like I have any preconceived idea of why it has to be understood a certain way
Ahh .. now I get it. I didn't realize that you were using the word "raised" in two different senses. That is the source of many confusions. You were suggesting that the bones of the dead were "raised" out of the ground before the bodies were "raised" in the sence of resurrected, correct?

I understand now ... and I suppose that is possible, but I don't see any good reason to think that the word "raised" would have such different conotations in a single context. It seems very confusing to me.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2007, 03:30 PM
Brother Richard,

I finally found the letter by Pontius Pilot to Caesar involving the crucifixion of Jesus and the Matthew 27 resurrection.

http://www.bsmvt.org/pilate.html

THE REPORT OF PONTIUS PILATE, PROCURATOR OF JUDAEA SENT TO ROME TO TIBERIUS CAESAR

To the most mighty, venerable, awful, most divine, the august,--Pilatus Pontius, the governor of the East: I have to report to thy reverence, through this writing of mine, being seized with great trembling and fear, O most mighty emperor, the conjuncture of the present times, as the end of these things has shown. For while I, my lord, according to the commandment of thy clemency, was discharging the duties of my government, which is one of the cities of the East, Jerusalem by name, in which is built the temple of the Jewish nation, all the multitude of the Jews came together, and delivered to me a certain man named Jesus, bringing against him many and groundless charges; and they were not able to convict him in anything. And one heresy of theirs against him was, that he said that the Sabbath was not their right rest. And that man wrought many cures, in addition to good works. He made the blind see; he cleansed lepers; he raised the dead; he healed paralytics who could not move at all, except that they only had their voice, and the joining of their bones; and he gave them the power of walking about and running, commanding them by a single word. And another mightier work he did, which was strange even with our gods: he raised up a dead man, Lazarus, who had been dead four days, by a single word ordering the dead man to be raised, although his body was already corrupted by the worms that grow in wounds; and that ill-smelling body lying in the tomb he ordered to run; and as a bridegroom from the bridal chamber, so he came forth out of the tomb, filled with exceeding fragrance. And some that were cruelly vexed by demons, and had their dwellings in deserts, and ate the flesh of their own limbs, and lived along with reptiles and wild beasts, he made to be dwellers in cities in their own houses, and by a word he rendered them sound-minded; and he made those that were troubled by unclean spirits to be intelligent and reputable; and sending away the demons in them into a herd of swine, he suffocated them in the sea. Another man, again, who had a withered hand, and lived in sorrow, and had not even the half of his body sound, he rendered sound by a single word. And a woman that had a flow of blood for many years, so that, in consequence of the flowing of her blood, all the joinings of her bones appeared, and were transparent like glass; and assuredly all the physicians had left her without hope, and had not cleansed her, for there was not in her a single hope of health: once, then, as Jesus was passing by, she took hold of the fringe of his clothes behind, and that same hour the power of her body was completely restored, and she became whole, as if nothing were the matter with her, and she began to run swiftly to her own city Paneas.

And these things indeed were so. And the Jews gave information that Jesus did these things on the Sabbath. And I also ascertained that the miracles done by him were greater than any which the gods whom we worship could do.

Him then Herod and Archelaus and Philip, and Annas and Caiaphas, with all the people, delivered to me to try him. And as many were exciting an insurrection against me, I ordered him to be crucified.

And when he had been crucified, there was darkness over the whole earth, the sun having been completely hidden, and the heaven appearing dark though it was day, so that the stars appeared, but had at the same time their brightness darkened, as I suppose your reverence is not ignorant of, because in all the world they lighted lamps from the sixth hour until evening. And the moon, being like blood, did not shine the whole night, and yet she happened to be at the full. And the stars also, and Orion, made a lament about the Jews, on account of the wickedness that had been done by them.

And on the first of the week, about the third hour of the night, the sun was seen such as it had never at any time shone, and all the heaven was lighted up. And as lightnings come on in winter, so majestic men of indescribable splendour of dress and of glory appeared in the air, and an innumerable multitude of angels crying out, and saying: Glory in the highest to God, and on earth peace, among men goodwill: come up out of Hades, ye who have been kept in slavery in the underground regions of Hades. And at their voice all the mountains and hills were shaken, and the rocks were burst asunder; and great chasms were made in the earth, so that also what was in the abyss appeared. And there were seen in that terror dead men raised up, as the Jews that saw them said: We have seen Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, that died two thousand five hundred years ago; and we have seen Noah manifestly in the body. And all the multitude walked about, and sang praises to God with a loud voice, saying: The Lord our God that has risen from the dead has brought to life all the dead, and has plundered Hades, and put him to death.

All that night therefore, my lord, O king, the light ceased not. And many of the Jews died, and were engulphed and swallowed up in the chasms in that night, so that not even their bodies appeared. Those, I say, of the Jews suffered that had spoken against Jesus. And one synagogue was left in Jerusalem, since all those synagogues that had been against Jesus were engulphed.

From that fear, then, being in perplexity, and seized with much trembling, at that same hour I ordered what had been done by them all to be written; and I have reported it to thy mightiness.
Thanks brother Joe!

Do you have any knowledge of how this document is received? Is it considered legit and trustworthy, or apocryphal, or pseudopigraphal or a fake?

Richard

TheForgiven
12-28-2007, 04:13 PM
Thanks brother Joe!

Do you have any knowledge of how this document is received? Is it considered legit and trustworthy, or apocryphal, or pseudopigraphal or a fake?

Richard

I honestly do not know brother Richard. According to another website which contains Roman Documents (Not affiliated with the RCC), this was one of his letters. Pontius has four other letters he wrote to Caesar. One was about what to do with Jesus of Nazareth when the Jews brought Him before him. There is a library of letters written to the Caesars, and later Emperors.

Another letter of interest is the one Pliny the younger wrote to Emperor Trajan on the proper punishment and/or judgment upon those who were accused of being a Christian. Trajan says for them not to waste time or energy hunting the Christians out, but if one should be found guilty of the charge, then he or she is to be placed on trial. If they are willing to renounce Jesus, then they would be spared, but if not, then it was up to the local ruling authorities to decide. However, if anyone, Christian or not, refused to offer the annual sacrifices to him (Trajan) and a pinch of incense, then they were to be put to death.

There are numerous writings you can find on line with Roman history. The letter I provided was from a Church History website.

Joe

Trumpet
12-28-2007, 05:48 PM
Hi guys,

I don't have any proof of the truth of this document, but at first look, I see some things that I would question. The first is the part about the synagogues being engulfed. I would think Josephus would have mentioned this. -And the other is the part where the risen people proclaimed that Hades was put to death. Since Hades is Greek for hell, and at the second resurrection, (which hasn't happened yet), both death AND hades, being separate entities, are thrown into the Lake of Fire,(which is the second death), it seems that there may be some inconsistency in this statement.

I know that there have been false documents come up before, and they are always colored by the particular theology of the one inventing it. It's kind of like walking through a mine field, isn't it.

Don

TheForgiven
12-28-2007, 08:09 PM
Hi guys,

I don't have any proof of the truth of this document, but at first look, I see some things that I would question. The first is the part about the synagogues being engulfed. I would think Josephus would have mentioned this. -And the other is the part where the risen people proclaimed that Hades was put to death. Since Hades is Greek for hell, and at the second resurrection, (which hasn't happened yet), both death AND hades, being separate entities, are thrown into the Lake of Fire,(which is the second death), it seems that there may be some inconsistency in this statement.

I know that there have been false documents come up before, and they are always colored by the particular theology of the one inventing it. It's kind of like walking through a mine field, isn't it.

Don

Well you might be right, because as you stated, we don't have proof. Now about your concerns for things you don't believe happen, let's cover that.

Synagogues

Josephus does mentioned earth quakes occurring all throughout the region. He does not list in specific detail what suffered destruction, but I think it's wise or safe enough to assume that with earth quakes comes damage or destruction of anything in its path. So I see no reason to doubt this portion of the document. Besides, Matthew 27 does in fact record an earth quake, as well as a resurrection:


Matthew 27:
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Common sense is enough to know that if the earth quake was strong enough to split rocks, I'm pretty certain that any building made of rock or stone was split just as well. Therefore, I can see no reason to doubt the external source provided by the above document; scripture affirms it.

Resurrection:

You stated that the resurrection hasn't happened yet. Then you do not agree with the scripture. I think what you mean to say is that a resurrection which did not include "US" happened yet. For some reason, only the Futurist and Historicist limit all resurrections to a single time and event. But there are no scriptures to support that thesis. We know Paul says that all would be raised in their own turn, Christ the first fruits, then those at his coming. However, scripture also says, "When he ascended on high, He led captivity captive..." This means that when Christ was raised, he saved those in Hades with him, and set them free. Revelation affirms this when Christ said, 'I have the keys of death and hades".

Hades is Hell

That is not entirely correct. Hades is a place where souls were kept in holding. It was Satan who had the keys of death and hades. But Christ winning the victory enabled all authority on heaven and on earth to be given to Him. Satan was thus cast down. Hades and hell are not the same place. The Lake of Fire, in my opinion, is a future final judgment. I do not believe that a death sentence to hell is yet, but is future. Now if I were to believe as the Full Preterist do, then hell is certainly quite active. At this point, I'm still unconvinced of Full Preterism. Now has for Hades being put to death, I'm uncertain and I share with your curiosity in this as well.

Clement, the Bishop of Rome whom the Apostle Paul ordained, states in his writing that those who die in Christ now AFTER the Apostles continue in a long sleep until the final day when the Kingdom is completed, and the building is finished. Then comes the time when the Kingdom itself is given to the Father and all is fulfilled. Then death and Hades also is throne into the Lake of Fire. But as I stated, Full Preterism might be correct, thereby proving that death and hades was defeated in 70AD, when the Kingdom of Christ (The Chruch) was ready. However, I'm not quite convinced yet.

Joe

TheForgiven
12-28-2007, 09:01 PM
Brother Richard,

Just a thought. Please keep in mind that what I'm posting is not my facts; just reasons to accept a possible difference between Full and Partial Preterism. There are many things I've pondered on over the years, but this one often comes to mind.

You brought up a very good point, that those who are raised abide with the Lord in the heavens. I've often used that opinion many times in my defense of Full Preterism. Unlike the dispensation believers who seem to want to rule the world (as though they do not already) I sometimes wonder about eternity itself. Will mankind abide on the earth eternally? If so, then why? Our universe is not limited to a single blue planet. Our universe is soooo big that time itself cannot contain it. If the heavens are indeed beyond the stars, then that is where I'd wish to spend eternity, and not limited to a small blue plane the size of a microscopic element compared to the universe. There are billions and billions of worlds out there, and being able to see these worlds would be heaven to me...I hope you don't think I speak as a fool. As Jody Foster stated on the movie "Contact", if we are indeed the only ones, it seems like an awful waste of space...for such a very small planet.

World domination is not my desire, nor would I care to remain in a planet made of rock and lava. Perhaps I'm in error because I do not understand the nature of eternity. I only know there are two eternities: one in the heavens and one in the Lake of Fire.

Futurist's seem to focus their attention on a planet filled with Adam and Eve like beings, drinking river water, eating fruits, abiding with the animals, and perhaps living in TP's and straw huts. I don't know, but to me, there's more to the universe than a single planet called earth, and I would think the heavens would be freedom indeed. Think about it. New worlds of habitation, other Christians abiding in other worlds, and other spectacular places of interest, and galaxies containing Godly beings our strongest telescopes have yet to reveal. Surely, heaven is our permanent place of abode and not a H20 based world.

Futurist's and Historicists want this:

http://www.santasjournal.com/journal/wp-content/earth.jpg

But I want this:

http://jp.senescence.info/thoughts/early_universe.jpg

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/the_universe/images/bigbang2b.gif


I'm interested in your thoughts brother Richard. You know that you and Dave mean more to me that you might know.

Joe

Trumpet
12-29-2007, 01:31 AM
Hi Joe,

My purpose here is to help. You have done a fantastic job over the last few months of showing how the prophecies of Daniel, Matthew, Etc., apply to the first century. And these proofs are on solid ground. It is very hard to refute them: in fact I consider it futile to try to say that these things don't apply to that time. But now I see some things where it looks to me that you may be accepting proofs that cannot be proven. I'm not coming against you, I'm trying to show how we can't stand on these things unless they have historic evidence behind them. I've seen you criticize the futurist view because they try to bring prophecy into the present day without any more evidence than our mystical avatar has :Date_Setting:

Back to your letter from Pontius Pilate...Look what he supposedly says:... "And one synagogue was left in Jerusalem, since all those synagogues that had been against Jesus were engulphed."

Now here's what you said:..."Josephus does mentioned earth quakes occurring all throughout the region. But he doesn't mention synagogues. For a Jewish person, this seems odd to me that he wouldn't mention the engulfing of more than just a few synagogues that would have a personal bearing on his own religion. He does not list in specific detail what suffered destruction, but I think it's wise or safe enough to assume that with earth quakes comes damage or destruction of anything in its path. So I see no reason to doubt this portion of the document. Now, I've never been present in a major earthquake, but I know people who have. From them I know that earthquakes don't have a path. One small area can be totally destroyed, and next to it will be an area unharmed, and then past that area may be more total destruction. You can't say that because rocks were split, it positively means that everywhere there is massive destruction. Your statement saying that you see no reason to doubt, when there IS even a little reason to doubt, comes against the ethic you have used up to now.Besides, Matthew 27 does in fact record an earth quake, as well as a resurrection:"Yes it does, but you can't necessarily impute what damage was done without positive evidence. And the resurrection at the time Jesus was raised is not necessarily the First Resurrection. Remember, John was given the Revelation at least 30 years after this resurrection that happened with Jesus' resurrection. He could call the first resurrection in the book of Revelation FIRST, because it would be the FIRST since that time, (he was referring to things in the future to him), and this doesn't take away from what happened with Jesus' resurrection.

My definition of "hell" comes from the Greek bible. "Hades" is the Greek word for the English "Hell". In the Greek, (which is what it was written in), John says that death and "hades" were thrown into the lake of fire.

Let me shed some light on the scripture in 1 Cor 15:23. 23) But every man in his own order: Christ:the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. 24) Then cometh the end.... The word "order" in the Greek is "tagma" and it means (From the Blue letter Bible)

1) that which has been arranged, thing placed in order

2) a body of soldiers, a corps

3) band, troop, class

Verse 22 explains that Paul is talking about those AFTER Christ, (ALL men die in Adam, In Christ ALL men will be made alive). He's talking about the sinners of mankind, not Jesus. And verse 23 is a continuance of that thought, "But every MAN (not Jesus), in his own order. Notice the above definition has a strong connotation of a group, which further strenghtens the thought of this being about men, not Jesus.

Also in verse 23, the word Christ in Greek doesn't necessarily mean Jesus, it means "annointed", which in this case can mean "annointed men". This can mean those that the letters to the churches are singled out by Jesus as being overcomers.


So I believe that this portion of scripture from verse 20 thru 23 is talking about : Jesus being raised in vs 20, then a group of annointed people as first fruits in verse 23, (this would be the first resurrection), then afterward a group of people at Jesus' 2nd coming, (the 2nd Resurrection), then "the end", (right after the completion of the 2nd Resurrection), when EVERYTHING is delivered up to the Father, even the last enemy; death.

Now for those that think it was COMPLETED in the first century, I have to ask, what about 1 Cor. 15:25. "For he must reign until he hath put ALL enemies under his feet." This word "ALL" means ....-"ALL!" That's sickness, robbery, lying, cheating, covetousness, murder, etc., etc., etc. In no way has that happened yet.

As far as the bodies that we will have after resurrection, I don't understand the confusion. Scripture tells us what they will be. They will be like Jesus' resurrected body. It says "when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." That's pretty plain to me. And He was able to go to heaven, yet be solid flesh and bone in front of people. He could all of a sudden appear in a place, yet vanish just as fast. I can't prove this, but for all you Star Trek buffs, and all you scientists, isn't this possibly what would happen upon going past the barriers contained in the Theory of Relativity? To attain the speed of light (God is light) you need and infinite supply of power(omnipotence of God). And as you approach the speed of light your mass increases to infinity(Jesus' seeming structural change in appearance), and time will stop at the speed of light. (eternity).

Jesus' body was structurally changed by an infinite and instantaneous power supply. His body was in the tomb, and that same body of flesh was transformed into something that has the ability to move between two different dimensions. He had the ability to look just like he was remembered as looking, and yet, He could be unrecognizeable. He could be talking and telling Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet been presented to the Father in heaven, and then, just a few hours later, allow people to touch His body, which means that this trip to heaven had been accomplished and He had returned to earth. There is no need to think that heaven is someplace far, far, away. It's as close as the Spirit inside of us. It's just in a dimension that we can't reach because we are mortal. We are there in Spirit, because the Kingdom of God is in us, but our molecular structure needs to be changed to get there physically, and only God has the power to do that.

I'd like to make one more observation.... Rev. 20:6 says: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:This is obviously not US who have the Kingdom of God in us here in mortal bodies.on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.....If you believe that you are reigning now, or this millenium has happened,(whatever the millenium exactly is), then you need to prove that the first resurrection has already happened. And the purpose of reigning is to bring all into subjection under Christ's feet, so that it can be presented to the Father in "the end", as it says in 1 Cor 15. In 2 Cor 1:22, and 5:5 we are told that God has given us the "earnest of the Spirit". This is to say that we have been given a down-payment, which is like saying we've got more coming. It's also obvious that we still only have this earnest of the Spirit. If we had the fulness, we would be flowing completely in the Spirit and there would be many things going on that aren't going on. The Apostles had this same earnest, because Paul was including himself when he spoke of it, yet the things that the Apostles did have, have not been seen since, and the fulness would bring more that they had. So this to me means that there is more to come, the millenium has not come, nor has the first resurrection. I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The pattern that God set up in the Feasts of Israel were fulfilled for the people of God, not just the old Jews. They are the THREE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS IN ALL OF HISTORY. They were fulfilled in such a way that it was shown outright, so all could see, and they were fulfilled ON THE CORRECT DAY, so that we would know that that was what it was. Jesus died for us on Passover, The church received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, but the third feast, Tabernacles has not been fulfilled. This third feast is SO IMPORTANT, that God would definately make sure we knew it has taken place. This feast was celebrated by the Jews living in Booths in the wilderness as they waited to enter the Promised Land. The Promised Land was their rest, their inheritance, but the fullness of the Feast of Tabernacles is the FULL rest and inheritance, and this is Resurrection, where we no longer have to dwell in these booths of flesh, but move into the mansions that God has for us, and these mansions are reserved for us in the New Jerusalem. It's not a building, it's a body. I'll leave you with 1 Pet 1:3,4:

3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

4) To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.

Tabernacles is yet to come.

basilfo
12-29-2007, 07:29 AM
As far as the bodies that we will have after resurrection, I don't understand the confusion. Scripture tells us what they will be. They will be like Jesus' resurrected body. It says "when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." That's pretty plain to me. And He was able to go to heaven, yet be solid flesh and bone in front of people. He could all of a sudden appear in a place, yet vanish just as fast.

Hi Trumpet,
I agree completely with your description of Jesus' body in resurrection. I started this thread on the question Paul presented as to which type body we will have after death because I have heard so much today that that body will be a physical one with mass and live on the earth. I do not believe Scripture says that.

Rather than use John's statement,
"when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is."
which I don't believe was specifically directed at describing the type body, why don't we use the DIRECT reference by Paul (1 Cor 15) - an entire discourse - to determine what type body? There Paul clearly states it is a 'spiritual body', NOT the one you have now, which is physical and has mass.
Could John be referring to things other than the type body we have when he said 'we will be like him'? I believe so.

But going with your position that our bodies will be exactly like Jesus' resurrected body, which scars or injuries (Jesus' wounds) do you think your body will have?

Peace to you,
Dave

joel
12-29-2007, 07:56 AM
So I believe that this portion of scripture from verse 20 thru 23 is talking about : Jesus being raised in vs 20, then a group of annointed people as first fruits in verse 23, (this would be the first resurrection), then afterward a group of people at Jesus' 2nd coming, (the 2nd Resurrection), then "the end", (right after the completion of the 2nd Resurrection), when EVERYTHING is delivered up to the Father, even the last enemy; death.


Trumpet, thanks for that insight. It is worthy of further discussion.

Joel

Trumpet
12-29-2007, 09:03 AM
Hi Dave,

The verses I used about our resurrected bodies being like Jesus' resurrected bodies ARE the verses that describe this. Step back for a second and look at your own request....You want to use 1 Cor 15:44 as a kind of proof text. Here Paul is saying that there are two different types of body, one natural, the other spiritual. He's only trying to get us to understand that there is a difference between the two types of body, he's not giving a description of them. Just because he uses the word "spiritual" doesn't necessarily mean a floaty vaporous thing. He is referring to the "spiritual realm" and this is exactly the type of body Jesus had after His resurrection. He has the ability to exist in both realms. I call them dimensions. Paul calls them "natural" and "spiritual". We have to be careful not to try to define Paul's words with our own pre-concieved definitions. I know that when people now-a-days hear the word "spiritual" it brings to mind something vaporous, or ethereal, but that's our pre-concieved definition, and it's aided by the Hollywood world that we live in. The real definitions are only found in the Word of God, and the only "hard evidence" we have in this instance is the example we have been given, and that is the resurrected Jesus.

God bless Don

MHz
12-29-2007, 09:13 AM
Hi Joe,
If God gave each star a name I don't see why He would not introduce you to all of them. What better way to get to know the stones of fire?

Eze:28:14: Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

I don't see anything wrong with an eternal earth, a garden where conditions are ripe for the same life that was in Genesis. Does the plural in 'worlds' have any bearing on 'what will eventually become part of the garden'.

Heb:1:2: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Would you really build a grass hut if that was to be your home forever, how many guests will it hold?

Wayne

Rose
12-29-2007, 09:33 AM
Hi Don, :yo:

Just one point I would like to make on my understanding of 1 Cor. 15:24-26.


So I believe that this portion of scripture from verse 20 thru 23 is talking about : Jesus being raised in vs 20, then a group of annointed people as first fruits in verse 23, (this would be the first resurrection), then afterward a group of people at Jesus' 2nd coming, (the 2nd Resurrection), then "the end", (right after the completion of the 2nd Resurrection), when EVERYTHING is delivered up to the Father, even the last enemy; death.

Now for those that think it was COMPLETED in the first century, I have to ask, what about 1 Cor. 15:25. "For he must reign until he hath put ALL enemies under his feet." This word "ALL" means ....-"ALL!" That's sickness, robbery, lying, cheating, covetousness, murder, etc., etc., etc. In no way has that happened yet.

1 Cor 15:24-26 "Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death."

Scripture says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death, from my understanding of verses like Rom.6:9, Jesus has already won the victory over death, and it has no more dominion over Him. Christ has already put all enemies under His feet. If that is the case then the end that 1 Cor. 15:24 is talking about has already happened. Jesus has already delivered up the kingdom to God, the kingdom of God is within us now. And as for all those things you mentioned like sickness, murder, lying, etc., etc., well we have the victory over those too...through Christ!

Rose

Abigail
12-29-2007, 10:11 AM
Hi Don, :yo:

Just one point I would like to make on my understanding of 1 Cor. 15:24-26.



1 Cor 15:24-26 "Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death."

Scripture says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death, from my understanding of verses like Rom.6:9, Jesus has already won the victory over death, and it has no more dominion over Him. Christ has already put all enemies under His feet. If that is the case then the end that 1 Cor. 15:24 is talking about has already happened. Jesus has already delivered up the kingdom to God, the kingdom of God is within us now. And as for all those things you mentioned like sickness, murder, lying, etc., etc., well we have the victory over those too...through Christ!

Rose

But then Rose, if everything is already under His feet, then does He still reign ...see 1 Cor 15:25

Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2007, 10:14 AM
I'm not coming against you, I'm trying to show how we can't stand on these things unless they have historic evidence behind them. I've seen you criticize the futurist view because they try to bring prophecy into the present day without any more evidence than our mystical avatar has :Date_Setting:

Hi Don and folks,

Don, I very much appreciate you reminder that we must have evidence for any historical claims. We only weaken our position if we assert weak arguments. I don't know much about the letter of Pilate, but it doesn't have the "ring" of truth to me, though I don't have a definite opinion yet.


Now for those that think it was COMPLETED in the first century, I have to ask, what about 1 Cor. 15:25. "For he must reign until he hath put ALL enemies under his feet." This word "ALL" means ....-"ALL!" That's sickness, robbery, lying, cheating, covetousness, murder, etc., etc., etc. In no way has that happened yet.


Well, it has and it hasn't, depending on your focus. Christ certainly did put an end to death with His resurrection, He was able to say that those who believe in Him would never die!
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
But on the other hand, we still look around and see beleivers dying just like the unbelievers. So was Jesus wrong, or do we need to understand His words as something other than a carnal literalism?

It seems to me that every believer has been translated (past tense) into the Kingdom of His dear Son (Col 1:13) and is now sitting in the heavenly places with Christ (whether we are "physically" aware of it or not). Thus, the wheat grows with the tares, and the dogs and sinners are outside the New Jerusalem, but inside the NJ there is no more weaping, pain, or death. Christ rules in His Kingdom, and we are in His Kingdom.


Now as for "all" meaning "ALL" - I agree! But the interesting point here is that the Bible says that God has put (past tense) all things in subjuection under his feet, but then goes on to say that we do not "see" it yet:
Hebrews 2:8-14 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

And this is where it gets very interesting. Hebrews makes the same connection with Christ's rule and His victory over death. Continuing in the same chapter:
Hebrews 2:9-14 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. ... 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part (past tense) of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were (past tense) all their lifetime subject to bondage.
So Christ has won the victory over death, and we Christians are enjoying the benefits of that victory, because we have been set from the bondage of the fear of death. But we do not yet "see" the whole cosmos in the same condition.

In conclusion, it seems to me perfectly accurate to say that everything was fulfilled in the first century, and yet the outworking is still continuing. Its a very interesting tension between everything "already" and "not yet" being fulfilled.


As far as the bodies that we will have after resurrection, I don't understand the confusion. Scripture tells us what they will be. They will be like Jesus' resurrected body. It says "when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." That's pretty plain to me. And He was able to go to heaven, yet be solid flesh and bone in front of people. He could all of a sudden appear in a place, yet vanish just as fast.

I agree completely. Christ's resurrection body was not a mere "physical" body. It was not made of "dust" though it could interact with "dust" (common physical stuff made of atoms).


I can't prove this, but for all you Star Trek buffs, and all you scientists, isn't this possibly what would happen upon going past the barriers contained in the Theory of Relativity? To attain the speed of light (God is light) you need and infinite supply of power(omnipotence of God). And as you approach the speed of light your mass increases to infinity(Jesus' seeming structural change in appearance), and time will stop at the speed of light. (eternity).

I tend to shy away from attempting to explain the supernatural in terms of the natural.


Jesus' body was structurally changed by an infinite and instantaneous power supply.

Or simply by a thought in the Mind of God.


His body was in the tomb, and that same body of flesh was transformed into something that has the ability to move between two different dimensions.

This is where our resurrection usually differs from that of Christ's. His body had not decayed, whereas our bodies are usually annihiliated before our resurrection, so it appears that they have nothing to do with our resurrection. How could they? They don't exist!


He had the ability to look just like he was remembered as looking, and yet, He could be unrecognizeable.

I don't know if that's becuse He changed His appearance or because " their eyes were prevented from recognizing him" (NASB Luke 24:16).

You make some good points about Rev 20 that I'll answer more after breakfast.

Richard

Trumpet
12-29-2007, 10:18 AM
Hi Rose,

You said:

Scripture says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death, from my understanding of verses like Rom.6:9, Jesus has already won the victory over death, and it has no more dominion over Him. Christ has already put all enemies under His feet. If that is the case then the end that 1 Cor. 15:24 is talking about has already happened. Jesus has already delivered up the kingdom to God, the kingdom of God is within us now. And as for all those things you mentioned like sickness, murder, lying, etc., etc., well we have the victory over those too...through Christ!


I don't believe God is going to be finished with this until it is ALL finished. Romans 6:9 says that Jesus rose from the dead, and sin has no more dominion over Him. Down in verse 11 Paul tells us to reckon ourselves dead to sin. In vs. 12 he says that we should not let sin reign in our mortal bodies. This means to me that, "we 'ain't got it all yet". Verse 12 also has imagery of something yet to come, since he refers to our "mortal" bodies, with the implication that there is more to come. Just as Jesus said, "It is finished", He was not saying that everything in all ways is finished, He was referring to the work that He was sent here to do. And this too, Jesus' personal overcoming of death, has not yet extended to all...We all still die, we all get sick, etc. To say it is already totally completed is to me, a weakening of the infinite power of God.

God made this earth, and placed two people on it. Sin entered the world through them, through disobedience, and the story of disobedience continues to this day. I personally believe that God is going to use disobedience to spawn obedience, and Jesus was the ONE who broke through the barriers so that this can be accomplished. It says that EVERY knee will bow, and EVERY tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord. That's something else that hasn't happened yet.

kathryn
12-29-2007, 10:42 AM
Yes, I agree Don....and again, we are still operating in the earnest or downpayment of the Holy Spirit, as you said. Full victory is not possible until we receive the fullness.

kathryn
12-29-2007, 12:12 PM
Just one quick question for Richard. You said you tended to shy away from attempting to explain the supernatural in terms of the natural, Richard.
It is my understanding that He has given us His creation as a valid witness to His Word. Romans 1: 20: For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
Isn't scripture full of illustrations from nature, used by God, to explain His character and purposes?

Rose
12-29-2007, 12:14 PM
Hi Kathryn :yo:


Yes, I agree Don....and again, we are still operating in the earnest or downpayment of the Holy Spirit, as you said. Full victory is not possible until we receive the fullness.

Question: If full victory is not possible until we receive the fullness- What part of the victory was not fulfilled at the cross?

Phil. 2:8-11 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

I'm still searching for answers too! I really appreciate all the different points of view, in my search for the truth...:pop2:

Rose

Rose
12-29-2007, 12:38 PM
Hi Abigail :yo: Thanks for the question.

I'll try to answer it as best as I can, because I'm still seeking answers too!

1 Cor. 15:24-27 "Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.For He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him."

I think maybe that verse is referring to the capacity that Christ is reigning in. Because it says that Christ delivers up the kingdom to God when He has put down All rule, power, and authority.....until that point, Christ was reigning over those things until they were put under His feet, that's when it was accomplished.

Hope that helps :)

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2007, 12:41 PM
I'd like to make one more observation.... Rev. 20:6 says: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:This is obviously not US who have the Kingdom of God in us here in mortal bodies.on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.....If you believe that you are reigning now, or this millenium has happened,(whatever the millenium exactly is), then you need to prove that the first resurrection has already happened.


I don't see the problem here. The first thing to note is that no one has any real "proof" of what the first and second resurrections mean because those terms are used in only one passage. So there is a lot of guesswork. But I think that the first resurrection probably refers to our salvation, when we passed from death to life. Christ Himself connects our salvation with the idea of resurrection:
John 5:24-29 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
The blue words speak of the resurrection that happens when we believe (the first resurrection) and the red words speak of the general resurrection (the second resurrection). Is there a problem with this interpretation?


And the purpose of reigning is to bring all into subjection under Christ's feet, so that it can be presented to the Father in "the end", as it says in 1 Cor 15. In 2 Cor 1:22, and 5:5 we are told that God has given us the "earnest of the Spirit". This is to say that we have been given a down-payment, which is like saying we've got more coming. It's also obvious that we still only have this earnest of the Spirit. If we had the fulness, we would be flowing completely in the Spirit and there would be many things going on that aren't going on. The Apostles had this same earnest, because Paul was including himself when he spoke of it, yet the things that the Apostles did have, have not been seen since, and the fulness would bring more that they had.

Your words make sense from one persective - that of expecting an earthly reign of Christ. But if that's not what the Bible is really teaching, then we may have to reevaluate all those conclusions. Especially the thing the Apostles did - those were outward external signs that God gave to confirm his word to people that wouldn't believe otherwise. There is no reason to atribute those powers to the idea that the Apostles were walking in more "fulness" than modern Christians. It was God who was acting then, and He is acting now in a different way. But that does not mean that there is less "fulness" of the Spirit now than then. It's just outwardly manifested differently.


So this to me means that there is more to come, the millenium has not come, nor has the first resurrection.

The "Millennium" in Rev 20 does not say anything about an earthly reign of Christ, and there are no other verses that speak of a 1000 year rule, so there is no foundation for a Biblical doctrine there. And the first resurrection looks like the salvation event, so that doesn't imply a future fulfillment either.


I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The pattern that God set up in the Feasts of Israel were fulfilled for the people of God, not just the old Jews. They are the THREE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS IN ALL OF HISTORY. They were fulfilled in such a way that it was shown outright, so all could see, and they were fulfilled ON THE CORRECT DAY, so that we would know that that was what it was. Jesus died for us on Passover, The church received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost,

Amen, amen, amen! I totally agree with that understanding. :thumb:


but the third feast, Tabernacles has not been fulfilled. This third feast is SO IMPORTANT, that God would definately make sure we knew it has taken place. This feast was celebrated by the Jews living in Booths in the wilderness as they waited to enter the Promised Land. The Promised Land was their rest, their inheritance, but the fullness of the Feast of Tabernacles is the FULL rest and inheritance, and this is Resurrection, where we no longer have to dwell in these booths of flesh, but move into the mansions that God has for us, and these mansions are reserved for us in the New Jerusalem. It's not a building, it's a body. I'll leave you with 1 Pet 1:3,4:

3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

4) To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.

Tabernacles is yet to come.
Very interesting! I must admit that you have made a very good argument for a future fulfillment. But I'll need to think about it more.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2007, 12:50 PM
Just one quick question for Richard. You said you tended to shy away from attempting to explain the supernatural in terms of the natural, Richard.
It is my understanding that He has given us His creation as a valid witness to His Word. Romans 1: 20: For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
Isn't scripture full of illustrations from nature, used by God, to explain His character and purposes?
Hi Kathryn

Yes, God uses natural things to illustrate spiritual things all the time. I wasn't talking about that kind of "explanation." I was talking about explaining supernatural events (as opposed to spiritual truths). For example, there was a recent television show that explained all the plagues on Egupt in terms of a very complex set of "coincidences." A volcano made the sky dark, and then released gasses into the water that made it look red like blood, etc. Or the idea that the "star" the led the magi was a natural conjunction of planets as opposed to a miraculous sign. Those are the kinds of naturalistic explanations for supernatural events that I was talking about. I wasn't denying that God uses natural phenomena to explain spiritual truths - I agree with that idea entirely.

Richard

Abigail
12-29-2007, 01:43 PM
1 Cor. 15:24-27 "Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.For He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him."

I think maybe that verse is referring to the capacity that Christ is reigning in. Because it says that Christ delivers up the kingdom to God when He has put down All rule, power, and authority.....until that point, Christ was reigning over those things until they were put under His feet, that's when it was accomplished.


Rose


Hi there Rose,

Interestingly the part of verse 27 which you highlighted For he hath put all things under his feet has a cross reference in my Bible to Psalm 8

Psalm 8:4-6 "(4)What is man, that Thou dost take thought of Him? And the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? (5)Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty! (6)Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hand; Thou hast put all things under his feet",

So, to me, the whole gist of this portion of 1 Cor 15 relates to man and the dignities given to him by God. The first man, Adam, was natural and did not put all things under his feet, in fact he died, but the second man was spiritual in that he came from heaven and he was able to put all things under his feet ...including not being subject to natural death of the body but putting it in subjection to Him. Natural death of the fleshly body is something which will be reversed in us because Christ has put this in subjection to Him and we will be like Him

Rose
12-29-2007, 06:16 PM
Hello again Abigail, :yo:


So, to me, the whole gist of this portion of 1 Cor 15 relates to man and the dignities given to him by God. The first man, Adam, was natural and did not put all things under his feet, in fact he died, but the second man was spiritual in that he came from heaven and he was able to put all things under his feet ...including not being subject to natural death of the body but putting it in subjection to Him. Natural death of the fleshly body is something which will be reversed in us because Christ has put this in subjection to Him and we will be like Him.

I would have to say that Christ was subject to natural death....which He overcame, opening the door for those who are in Christ to overcome the death of the natural body, by being raised in the resurrection to eternal life through Christ. For Jesus is the Resurrection, and the Life!

Rose

TheForgiven
12-29-2007, 06:50 PM
Trumpet

If you don't mind me asking, are you a Partial Preterist, or are you Full Futurist? I'm just wondering because you seem to agree with me on Daniel's vision being fulfilled in the 1st century. How then does this affect your outcome on Futurism?

Are the 70 sevens completed? My answer is ye.
Did "This Generation" spoken of in Matthew 23 and 24 pass? My answer is yes

As long as we agree that these to very significant events are past, then what more is there to fulfill? Do you believe the millennium's (1000's of years) are present and awaiting fulfillment, and the final resurrection? Or do you expect a future "First" resurrection, then the 1000 years?

I'd like to hear a short summary on your take, then I'll proceed from there.

Joe

TheForgiven
12-29-2007, 06:56 PM
Richard

You brought up a point that I used to make in my Full Preterist days, regarding the first resurrection. St. Constantine was the one who insisted that the first resurrection is not the bodily resurrection, but the salvation resurrection when we are "Born again".

This is signified in scripture. For Revelation states, "They shall be Priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him for the 1000 years...."

Peter says in His Epistle, "For you have become Priests and Kings" or was it, "For you are a royal Priesthood, a kingly nation...." of course referring to the Christian Church.

You might very well be right, and this would certainly prove that the 1000 years are still active, though not limited as some think. For the reign of Christ is not set to a 1000 years, but eternally.

My problem with the first resurrection being relative to salvation (or born again) is that Revelation specifically mentioned the Martyrs of Jesus. These are those who were "slain" for the word of God and of their testimony in Jesus. Yet none of us were slain for the word of God and our testimony of Jesus. That being said, this leaves us with one of two choices from my perspective:

1. Either the 1000 years are completed and we are their offspring, as Full Preterist teach.
2. The 'slain" is not a literal slain, but a figure for dying via baptism into death.

There may be another option which I've missed. Do you follow me thus far?

I'm interested in your help in this matter brother Richard. I'm trying to find a strong reason to revert back to Full Preterism, but I'm having a very difficult time doing that, and my spirit won't permit me to do it.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2007, 08:14 PM
My problem with the first resurrection being relative to salvation (or born again) is that Revelation specifically mentioned the Martyrs of Jesus. These are those who were "slain" for the word of God and of their testimony in Jesus. Yet none of us were slain for the word of God and our testimony of Jesus. That being said, this leaves us with one of two choices from my perspective:

1. Either the 1000 years are completed and we are their offspring, as Full Preterist teach.
2. The 'slain" is not a literal slain, but a figure for dying via baptism into death.

There may be another option which I've missed. Do you follow me thus far?

I'm interested in your help in this matter brother Richard. I'm trying to find a strong reason to revert back to Full Preterism, but I'm having a very difficult time doing that, and my spirit won't permit me to do it.

Joe
Hey there Joe,

First, I would say that neither preterism nor futurism depends on how we understand Rev 20. The situation is exactly the opposite. Rev 20 is too ambiguous and has no clear confirming verses, so its interpretation depends upon the eschatological system used to interpret it. Futurist find a view consistent with their system, as do the preterists.

I felt it important to make that point clear so you don't make the mistake of thinking that preterism or futurism rises or falls with any particular interpretation of Rev 20.

That stated, I appreciate and share your conundrum, and think it is good that we try to understand it.

As for point 1 - I am not convinced that the church age could not be the thousand years with the events like the second (general) resurrection happening afterwards. Does that cause a problem for the (full) preterist position, or do they just impose "everything must have been fulfilled in the past" in some kind of preterist mania? If the text, either directly or by implication, does not demand a past fulfillment, I would not be inclided to "assume" it merely for consistency's sake.

As for point 2 - that idea has been echoing around the back of my mind for a long time. I'm not sure if its correct or not. But it is a persistent possibilitly.

As for returning to "Full Preterism" - I would very much like to know how you define it. I consider myself a "full preterist" in as much as all the prophecies of the first century were fulfilled, but I don't say that there is necessarily no other prophetic bits and pieces yet to be fulfilled. My key concept is to be true to Scripture. I am convinced the futurism in general is false, but that doesn't mean that there are NO prophecies left.

God bless you brother. I'm really glad you are working on this with me, because its important to me too.

Richard

TheForgiven
12-29-2007, 09:04 PM
As for returning to "Full Preterism" - I would very much like to know how you define it. I consider myself a "full preterist" in as much as all the prophecies of the first century were fulfilled, but I don't say that there is necessarily no other prophetic bits and pieces yet to be fulfilled. My key concept is to be true to Scripture. I am convinced the futurism in general is false, but that doesn't mean that there are NO prophecies left.

God bless you brother. I'm really glad you are working on this with me, because its important to me too.

Richard

Full Preterism believes that every ounce of prophesy was fulfilled in 70 AD. This includes:

1. The resurrection (1st and 2nd)
2. 1000 year reign (30 AD - 70 AD) or (Davids death to 70 AD)
3. Satan destroyed (In the LOF)
4. Beast and False Prophet destroyed in 70 AD
5. Battle of Armageddon in 70 AD

Nothing after 70 AD invovles prophesy, according to the Full Preterist view. What I once taught was the the resurrection involved only our spirits, and that in heaven, we would be given a new body in the form of a spiritual body. I also taught that Satan was killed when Jerusalem was detroyed, using the Isaiah prophesy of Leviathan....


Isaiah 27:
1 In that day,
the LORD will punish with his sword,
his fierce, great and powerful sword,
Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;
he will slay the monster of the sea.

2 In that day—
"Sing about a fruitful vineyard:

3 I, the LORD, watch over it;
I water it continually.
I guard it day and night
so that no one may harm it.

4 I am not angry.
If only there were briers and thorns confronting me!
I would march against them in battle;
I would set them all on fire.

5 Or else let them come to me for refuge;
let them make peace with me,
yes, let them make peace with me."

6 In days to come Jacob will take root,
Israel will bud and blossom
and fill all the world with fruit.

I also used the Isaiah prophesy of the New Heavens and New Earth


Isaiah 66:
19 "I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations—to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations.[these are the Apostles] 20 And they will bring all your brothers, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD -on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels," says the LORD. "They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites," says the LORD.[Apostles spread the gospels to the Gentiles]

22 "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. 24 "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

These two books clearly show that all was fulfilled in the first century, from the New Heaven to the New Earth, and the destruction of Leviathan, the devil who tried to use Rome and destroy God by destroying Jerusalem, though he failed in his attempt, not understanding that it was His purpose to permit Jerusalem's destruction. This awesome display of power would be the witness unto all nations about the dangers of Apostasy against the mighty God. Prince Titus himself stated that his victory would not have been possible unless the God of the Jews had permitted it.

These were my two strongest defenses for Full Preterism. Satan's death in 70 AD and the New Heaven and New Earth established by the Apostles.

However, Satan continued even beyond 70 AD, as also testified by the early fathers. And the New Heaven and New earth was not yet completed; the gospel was still growing and bearing fruit. So after years of study and comparison, I came to the conclusion that Partial Preterism was the answer, especially involving the bodily transformation from flesh and blood, to the spiritual body.

I'm torn between the two ideas, but both seem to accurate and correct. Futurism, on the other hand, has no merit and is impossible to be correct, namely because Daniel's seventy sevens has not scriptural gap, plus there's not a single decimal of scripture teaching of a future rebuilt temple of brick, rock and stone, for Christ to literally and physically rule from, and finally, as Christ stated to the Apostles, "his generation would not pass away until all was fulfilled." So you see, this seems to support Full Preterism.

EEEEEK! I want to throw in the towel sometimes. LOL!

Joe

kathryn
12-29-2007, 11:46 PM
Hi Rose....you asked: "what part of the victory was not fulfilled at the cross?"
I would say, His victory in and through us hasn't been fully accomplished yet.
Wouldn't you say that all of creation is still groaning for the manifestation of the Sons of God? I know I am!:D

Abigail
12-30-2007, 05:05 AM
Hello again Abigail, :yo:



I would have to say that Christ was subject to natural death....which He overcame, opening the door for those who are in Christ to overcome the death of the natural body, by being raised in the resurrection to eternal life through Christ. For Jesus is the Resurrection, and the Life!

Rose


But subjection is a state of being, so if He was truly subject to natural death then He would've stayed dead ie remained in subjection, but He didnt for God raised Him from the dead. God put all things in subjection to Him and through Christ we will have physical death put in subjection to us because we have the victory through Christ. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God but through Christ it can (1 Cor 15:50), perishable does not automatically inherit imperishable, this too is done through Christ. Mortal does not automatically inherit immortality, this again is done through Christ (1 Cor 15:53)

1 Cor 15:57 "But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ"

Trumpet
12-30-2007, 08:56 AM
Hi Guys,

I have a question. Why do people want to join a grouping? We are supposed to keep moving and learning with God. He's got a lot to show us. But every grouping (I mean, Preterist, partial preterist, pre-trib, historisist, futurist, etc.,) is a stopping.

These things all end in "ist". Is that "I've stopped traveling"? It's a place that we are trying to accept as having the whole truth. Being labled like this, or even having the thought that ANY group has the full truth makes me nauseated. It must be part of the human psyche to want to stop and put down roots. I remember the example given in Exodus, where God came down on the mount, and wanted to speak directly to the Jews, but they were afraid and wanted Moses to do it for them. They refused to go into the Promised Land, because they were afraid. They received a sentence of 40 years for this, and had to follow the pillar of fire, and the pillar of cloud, and God kept them moving. They wanted to rest. Some even tried to go into the Promised land when they heard that they had to wait, and they were killed for it. Even after they got into the Promised land they wanted a king to hear from God, instead of following on their own. They received Saul as a reward for this. Richard has set up a site where we can talk of what God is showing us. We can move on by His guidance. We can take the ideas of those in these different groups and sort out their wrong ideas, and retain the good ideas. Let's not stop. Don't lable ourselves. Let's keep moving. There's a lot of ground to cover.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-30-2007, 11:24 AM
Hi Guys,

I have a question. Why do people want to join a grouping? We are supposed to keep moving and learning with God. He's got a lot to show us. But every grouping (I mean, Preterist, partial preterist, pre-trib, historisist, futurist, etc.,) is a stopping.

These things all end in "ist". Is that "I've stopped traveling"? It's a place that we are trying to accept as having the whole truth. Being labled like this, or even having the thought that ANY group has the full truth makes me nauseated. It must be part of the human psyche to want to stop and put down roots. I remember the example given in Exodus, where God came down on the mount, and wanted to speak directly to the Jews, but they were afraid and wanted Moses to do it for them. They refused to go into the Promised Land, because they were afraid. They received a sentence of 40 years for this, and had to follow the pillar of fire, and the pillar of cloud, and God kept them moving. They wanted to rest. Some even tried to go into the Promised land when they heard that they had to wait, and they were killed for it. Even after they got into the Promised land they wanted a king to hear from God, instead of following on their own. They received Saul as a reward for this. Richard has set up a site where we can talk of what God is showing us. We can move on by His guidance. We can take the ideas of those in these different groups and sort out their wrong ideas, and retain the good ideas. Let's not stop. Don't lable ourselves. Let's keep moving. There's a lot of ground to cover.
Hey Don,

Those are some really good points. The history of Israel looks like my own history of stumbling from one error to another, but thankfully God is very patient! I particularly appreciate your advice that we "keep moving" and that we don't just stop someone and set down roots in a partially understood doctrine.

But as for labels, I've noticed that many folks go out of their way to avoid being labeled, and for good reason since no label of two or three words can ever accurately convey the unique totality of a person's believe. Even if I said "I am an evangelical Christian" you wouldn't know if I were arminian or Calvinist, or believed in dunking or sprinkling or what ever.

But on the other hand, I freely "label" myself as "preterist" because of my general understanding of prophecy. But I don't give much weight to any labels, because I know their shortcomings.

And one other thought - as our understanding grows, each person is expected to come to a better and better understanding of what they believe and why. And so for the sake of convenience and we invent or adopt shorthand descriptions - labels - to convey our convictions. I think that is a necessary and normal part of this process.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-30-2007, 11:42 AM
Full Preterism believes that every ounce of prophesy was fulfilled in 70 AD.

This includes:

1. The resurrection (1st and 2nd)
2. 1000 year reign (30 AD - 70 AD) or (Davids death to 70 AD)
3. Satan destroyed (In the LOF)
4. Beast and False Prophet destroyed in 70 AD
5. Battle of Armageddon in 70 AD

Nothing after 70 AD invovles prophesy, according to the Full Preterist view. What I once taught was the the resurrection involved only our spirits, and that in heaven, we would be given a new body in the form of a spiritual body. I also taught that Satan was killed when Jerusalem was detroyed, using the Isaiah prophesy of Leviathan....


I also used the Isaiah prophesy of the New Heavens and New Earth


These two books clearly show that all was fulfilled in the first century, from the New Heaven to the New Earth, and the destruction of Leviathan, the devil who tried to use Rome and destroy God by destroying Jerusalem, though he failed in his attempt, not understanding that it was His purpose to permit Jerusalem's destruction. This awesome display of power would be the witness unto all nations about the dangers of Apostasy against the mighty God. Prince Titus himself stated that his victory would not have been possible unless the God of the Jews had permitted it.

These were my two strongest defenses for Full Preterism. Satan's death in 70 AD and the New Heaven and New Earth established by the Apostles.

However, Satan continued even beyond 70 AD, as also testified by the early fathers. And the New Heaven and New earth was not yet completed; the gospel was still growing and bearing fruit. So after years of study and comparison, I came to the conclusion that Partial Preterism was the answer, especially involving the bodily transformation from flesh and blood, to the spiritual body.

I tend agree with much of what you wrote, but I have a nagging suspicion that its not as "neat and tidy" as full preterists might like. The one thing I strive to avoid above all else is the "force-fitting" of anything into a preconceived pattern, because I know that would lead to error, and what fool would deliberately persist in known error?

Thankfully, God has made me very peaceful and confident about one thing. I KNOW that God has established the main things and the plain things on the foundation of multiple mutually confirming verses. Therefore, I delight to focus on what He has made perfectly plain and certain, and I have no problem at all leaving the inscrutible things unscruted. :lol:

I would say that 95% of all errors in eschatology are generated by groundless speculation like the 1937+ year gap, the rebuilt temple, the future Millennium, the antichrist covenant, etc., etc., etc.. and the preterists contribute their share error when they attempt to squeeze everything into 70 AD without clear Scriptural warrant. When I say "groundless" and "without warrant" I speak of doctrines that do not have two or three clear and unambiguous passages supporting them.


I'm torn between the two ideas, but both seem to accurate and correct. Futurism, on the other hand, has no merit and is impossible to be correct, namely because Daniel's seventy sevens has not scriptural gap, plus there's not a single decimal of scripture teaching of a future rebuilt temple of brick, rock and stone, for Christ to literally and physically rule from, and finally, as Christ stated to the Apostles, "his generation would not pass away until all was fulfilled." So you see, this seems to support Full Preterism.

EEEEEK! I want to throw in the towel sometimes. LOL!

Joe
Ha! Just do what I do Joe. Don't worry. Be happy. :sunny:

Remember the Golden Key to Eschatological Doctrinal Happiness. God has made the main things the plain things, and He has confirmed everything He wants us to "know for sure" with two or three clear and unambiguous passages. Nothing else "matters" in the doctrinal sense. If God didn't see fit to establish it in His Word according to His pattern of confirmation, why should I concern myself over it?

Richard

Trumpet
12-30-2007, 03:22 PM
Hi Richard,


Sometimes I'm a little feisty too!

God Bless! Don

Richard Amiel McGough
12-30-2007, 03:26 PM
Sometimes I'm a little feisty too!

God Bless! Don

Amen! I wouldn't have it any other way!

Brothers in the good feist! :tea:

Richard

Trumpet
12-31-2007, 02:00 PM
Hi Richard,

[QUOTE=RAM;5125]I don't see the problem here. The first thing to note is that no one has any real "proof" of what the first and second resurrections mean because those terms are used in only one passage. So there is a lot of guesswork. But I think that the first resurrection probably refers to our salvation, when we passed from death to life. Christ Himself connects our salvation with the idea of resurrection:
John 5:24-29 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
The blue words speak of the resurrection that happens when we believe (the first resurrection) and the red words speak of the general resurrection (the second resurrection). Is there a problem with this interpretation?


I had to jump back to this. The problem I have with it is my different outlook on the meaning of a few things. (I think?!) If I'm reading you right, you are saying that "passing from death unto life" in verse 24, is a resurrection. I've got to refer back to John 3 and the "Born again" section. This is my understanding of where the "passing from death unto life" takes place in a person. Since Jesus compares Spiritual birth to physical birth, I take it to mean that you are starting out on a new path. A baby is born into a world for the first time, and a person is born into the Spiritual world for the first time. Of course, by entering the Spiritual world, a person avoids the obvious ending of "death" because he diverts that end, and also, he can consider himself "dead to God" before conversion, he hasn't "passed from death to life" in the sense of re-creating life from a death that had taken place at some point from a life that had been, but a first time birth that gives us the path to avoiding the natural consequence to life, (death), for the first time. Not a resurrection of a death we exist in, but a passing from a direction we are headed. It's the difference between the words "Born-again", and "Born anew", which, as you know, is also a correct Greek rendering. So in John 5:24, Jesus is speaking of passing from a coming consequence, not a passing from something that a person had before. I looked up the 42 uses of the word "resurrection" in the KJV, and I would be hard pressed to find a use of that word to mean anything other than a physical passing from death to life. It doesn't seem to hold any "spiritual" meaning at all, which is what has to be done to define 5:24 as a symbolic meaning for resurrection.

When we are baptized we are giving up the old man as dead, to live in the new life, (the Spirit), but we still look for the total completion, (the resurrection) which is the full meaning of that word, I believe. What do you think??

Don

TheForgiven
12-31-2007, 03:00 PM
I think I'll consider myself a neutral on this subject as I just can't explain something of God's power and abilities. I'll simply accept the well known fact that I believe in the resurrection, and whether this body or a body to come is beyond me....I only know that the end result is far better than what I currently have. My earthly tent is suffering from wounds (Motorcycle crash) and previously cancer. I'm ready to trade in this old tent in exchange for a new one. :lol:

God bless you all brothers and sisters, and please remember. No matter what conclusion you or I may come up with, we are all family in the same body. Granted we shouldn't label ourselves and kin or friend of cults, which are religions claiming Christianity but not part of the New Testament Church. These cults (Names left out) form their own agenda's and doctrines, and claim to have received revelations or messages directly to them, yet have no scriptural proof.

But to be safe and not condemn anyone, I will not list these particular cults....as I'm sure you all understand.

I love you all very much, no matter what eschatology you believe.....cross my heart. :hippie:

God bless,

Joe