Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The basic Bible Story

N

noblej6

Guest
Hi Forum,

I have been reading around this site for a few weeks and boy, I don't agree with much that is said around here, but maybe I just misunderstand what I've read.

I think to understand this I'll have to start in the book of Genesis.

Adam didn't follow instructions and ate the fruit.....so he would surely die???


Die-how?

1)Did he die instantly?
2) Was he destined to physically live on earth forever if he had not ate the fruit?
3)Was he destined to have a heavenly afterlife after physical earthly life which he lost when he ate the fruit?

...other?

Christ came to regain for us whatever it was that Adam lost for us, how did Christ do that?

1) provided the ultimate sacrifice to cover off Adam's sin?
2) other?

When do we recieve the benefits of what Jesus done for us?

1) started already in first century
2)when Jesus returns to earth sometime in the future

When we receive these benefits are we

1)alive or
2)dead
??????????????????????????????????

John
 
Adam didn't follow instructions and ate the fruit.....so he would surely die???

It was ap spiritual "break". God is Spirit and Adam was made in God's image as we are, but we are also housed in the "flesh". Adam had made a call to disobey God and put his own desires before that of His Creator. Free-will allows for that possibility. So incidentally, God did not create evil or sin, but free-will allows for that as a possibility. Evil is always an abuse of that which is good. Evil is "broken" good. Sin is falling short of God's standard, which in Adam's case was simple obedience. But pride in the form of the world-flesh and Devil got him to idolize himself so to speak and diss God.

Buy cutting himself off from the source of all good, including life, Adam died spiritually. So that he would not be a walking wounded forever, God removed him form the Garden. Creation also became cursed as a result of man. So the "fish became sick and his wounds muddied up his aquarium". Sorry for the crude analogy.

Man could not fix himself or realize what he'd done to himself without intervention and a plan to restore the relationship. It didn't happen right a way so that God's love, just and patience could be evident to all. It's the same reason why the Devil didn't get tossed in the Lake of Fire (Matthew 25:41) the instant he sinned.

So God set into motion a plan to restore man. To make a long story short, Christ made it possible for use to repair our spirit even though we still live in the cursed creation. Someday we will die and be glorified which is another way of saying that we will be restored to the state God intended us to be. Adam was ignorant and innocent. Today we are knowledgable in good and evil and not innocent practically, but positionally yes. In the final glorified state when we are practically restored, we will be innocent because of Christ, but not ignorant.
 
Hi Cameron,

I'll try and do a short explanation of how I see the whole thing. Adam was never intended to physically live forever, but he would have had a heavenly life after physical death if he had of obeyed. When Adam died he was required to sleep in the dust aware of nothing until Jesus sacrificed HIs life to make up for that sin.

Someday we will die and be glorified which is another way of saying that we will be restored to the state God intended us to be.

Which is what I would say to but I think we differ on what God intended us to be.

Earthly dwellers until physical death

then

Heavenly dwellers eternally.

What differences are between us here?

JOhn
 
I think we differ on what God intended us to be.

I think we only need to read Genesis 2-3 with Revelation 21-22 to see what God intended us to be.

He made the time-space continuum for us to bear His image and reflect His glory in a creation that could also do the same. Time is God's creation. We swim in time like fish swim in water. We can't think outside of time so some of these questions regarding eternity are difficult to understand.

We know Adam had a beginning and we know the universe had a beginning.

Perhaps the answer to you inquiry lies in the nature of the Resurrection. Jesus represents the fulfilment of the spiritual reality that we will all be partakers of if we place our faith in His sacrifice for us. He was completely physical and walked around and talked with people and even ate fish
:icecream: .

Could Jesus have died a second time in the glorified state? If He had walked around the Temple after the Resurrection, what would their system have done? What does "incorruptible" mean (1 Cor 15)?
 
Hi Cameron,

Perhaps the answer to you inquiry lies in the nature of the Resurrection.

It can definately be answered by the nature of the resurrection, but not the resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection of you and I.

That is where the incorruptible comes in. Jesus was incorruptible after He was raised, but He always was incorruptible. We are not incorruptible as we live on earth, but will be as the spiritual body is taken on.

I think so much time is taken up in discussion of the state or nature of the resurrected Christ when there is countless verses which deal with the resurrection of the common man. Some do not see Jesus as the one and only God, but in any case He is definately not mortal man. The fact that He ate or told Thomas He was not a ghost doesn't say as much about our resurrected state as say these verses from Paul:

40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

I think we are on the right trail tho in discussing the state of the resurrected being.

John
 
OK,
But I think this speaks of the similarity between our bodies and Christ's:

1Co 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Of course we speaking of Christ's human nature, not His Divine nature when we speak of a body. I don't see any reason to understand our glorified bodies any differently than Christ's post-Resurrection body.
 
Hi Cameron,

Of course we speaking of Christ's human nature, not His Divine nature when we speak of a body. I don't see any reason to understand our glorified bodies any differently than Christ's post-Resurrection body.

We can get lost rather easily in the meanings of very common words here.

The 'body' as I see it is as the verses I quoted show it.

it is imperishable.........
it is glorious............
it is powerful..........
it is incorruptible...........

AND there is a earthly natural physical body and there is a heavenly spirtiual body.

The Earthly comes first and then after that is the spiritual body.

I agree that we will be like Jesus as it says here:

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

The big difference between those two bodies is that one is earthly, temporary and physical, one is Heavenly, eternal and invisible to mortal man.

So I agree that we will be like Jesus in His after resurrection state, but we probably don't agree what that state is. Is that right?

John
 
Hi Forum,

I guess the simple way to go thru this is to clearly show the two main interpretations of the basic bible story, then go thru scripture and see what fits best from beginning to end.

Interpretation 1

Adam disobeyed God and lost eternal life. By eternal life it means to simply live forever on earth in a paradise environment.

Interpretation 2:

Adam disobeyed God and lost eternal life. By eternal life it means the physicall life on earth, then physical death, then the being reborn as an invisible, spiritual being which 'lives' forever in Heaven.

That might just be a bit too basic and not describe the intent of various biblical theory. I would invite anyone interested to clarify and develope a better set of descriptions.

John
 
The 'body' as I see it is as the verses I quoted show it.

it is imperishable.........
it is glorious............
it is powerful..........
it is incorruptible...........

AND there is a earthly natural physical body and there is a heavenly spirtiual body.

The Earthly comes first and then after that is the spiritual body.

What makes you think that Adam's body was not like this before the Fall?

After all the creation and Adam could witness God's Full Unveiled Glory.

This creation will perish instantly when this happens in Rev. 20:11

Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.
 
Hi Cameron,

What makes you think that Adam's body was not like this before the Fall?

I don't think Adams body was imperishable or God wouldn't have had to mention his possible demise if he ate the fruit.

I don't think Adam was glorious or the serpent would have avoided him.

I don't think Adam was powerful when he sucummed to temptation.

It is obvious Adam wasn't incorruptible because he was corrupted.

I don't think the garden of Eden was the promised Kingdom of God or Satan could not have entered in.

This creation will perish instantly when this happens in Rev. 20:11

I don't see it that way, but our trip thru scripture will reveal whether that is right or not.

But back to the state of Jesus after His resurrection.

I think we agree that Jesus is in Heaven right now. However, we can't see Him which means to me that He is invisible or spiritual, like the angels in Heaven. When did He become spiritual or invisible? I assume you feel He left physical and will return in like manner using Acts 1:11. I read that verse as Jesus left on the clouds and will return in like manner - on the clouds. How many verses do we know that tells us Jesus will return on the clouds? How many verses do we know that says Jesus will return physically? I, personally , don' t know any. So while I agree that Jesus could manifest Himself physical or spiritually anytime while on earth, He is spiritual now and will remain that way. Remember that the documented case of Jesus returning to planet earth to meet Paul on the road to Damascus shows Jesus to be invisible or spiritual. Acts 9.

So if Jesus is invisible or spiritual right now, when did He take on that invisability? What verse tells us He will change to physical again?

Acts 10:40 NASB
40"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,

41not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God,........................................

I also think we agree that Jesus is eternal, His Kingdom is eternal and the promised inheritance is also eternal.
Here we see the basic fact about things eternal.

2 Cor 4
18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

So as we look at the nature of Jesus body after His resurrection I see it as spiritual at this time, physical when He met Thomas, but now has become spiritual just as He was since He created eveything in the past.

Again I say that 1 Cor 15 is the main place to look to describe the resurrection body of mankind.

You obviously feel Adam could have physically lived forever. Let's go thru your reasoning.

John
 
I don't think Adams body was imperishable or God wouldn't have had to mention his possible demise if he ate the fruit.


Joh 21:13 Jesus came, took the bread, and gave it to them. He did the same with the fish.

Doesn't this imply that Jesus ate fish with the Disciples after the Resurrection?

I don't think Adam was glorious or the serpent would have avoided him.

I don't think Adam was powerful when he sucummed to temptation.

It is obvious Adam wasn't incorruptible because he was corrupted.

I don't think the garden of Eden was the promised Kingdom of God or Satan could not have entered in.

These are fine points, but to me thay are more semantical than a point of significant difference. Why? Becuase man existed in a place God intended and he interacted with God personally and there was no veiling between them and Adam was without sin and uncorrupted and immortal. Why would God create such wonderful personalities unless He intended them to exist forever from the start?

Quote:

This creation will perish instantly when this happens in Rev. 20:11


I don't see it that way, but our trip thru scripture will reveal whether that is right or not.

And so this is our primary point of difference. I see God in the Garden of Eden unveilied in glory and then when He does after the Fall, all the universe flees from His face becuase itis broken.

Itis like the wine skins, new wine does not fit in old skins. They burst because they are old and broken. Sin broke creation or caused it to be broken according to Genesis 3.
How many verses do we know that says Jesus will return physically? I, personally , don' t know any.
You don't think Jesus was physical in John 21?
Thomas, touched Him. He told the women not to touch Him. Come on, the evidence clearly point to physical with total control over the physcial in a way we don't understand such as passing through walls and raising up to Heaven. of course, Phillip did something similar by being transported to the Ethiopian and Elijah certainly rose into Heaven too. No one doubts they were physical.
 
Hi Cameron,

Doesn't this imply that Jesus ate fish with the Disciples after the Resurrection?

Many seem to think that eating is very significant to illustrate physicality in Jesus. Jesus was God first of all, He never needed food in the first place. So yes, I see this as Jesus eating food, but I see nothing amazing about it. Just as Jesus walked on water in His earthly ministry, He was God. Appearing physical and spiritual at will is not out of the ordinary to me.

These are fine points, but to me thay are more semantical than a point of significant difference. Why? Because man existed in a place God intended and he interacted with God personally and there was no veiling between them and Adam was without sin and uncorrupted and immortal. Why would God create such wonderful personalities unless He intended them to exist forever from the start?

Many fine points develop to major points, I think.
Yes, man existed in a spot God intended, God interacted with man, He still does in different ways perhaps but He still does.
Why would God create Adam as He did?....... Why not?

And so this is our primary point of difference. I see God in the Garden of Eden unveilied in glory and then when He does after the Fall, all the universe flees from His face becuase itis broken.

Do you think so? It is part of it for sure, but the nature of the resurrected is part of it as well I think.

Suffice it to say, the fall happened, Adam was to die. Die how?

A point to your man being in paradise statement.
Let's say Adam had not sinned and Adam was allowed to stay in this paradise garden. Adam was told to go forth and multiply and we have no physical death to curb population. How would God have figured to house all these bodies of humans. If there had been no death thru time we each would have less than 1 square foot of space to exist on on planet earth as was in the first century.

So what is it, was God not done creating or did the mastermind of the universe not know what He was getting into?

Itis like the wine skins, new wine does not fit in old skins. They burst because they are old and broken.

Well, I know what you are getting at, but old wine would burst the wineskin too, at least that has been my experience.

You don't think Jesus was physical in John 21?
Thomas, touched Him. He told the women not to touch Him. Come on, the evidence clearly point to physical with total control over the physcial in a way we don't understand such as passing through walls and raising up to Heaven. of course, Phillip did something similar by being transported to the Ethiopian and Elijah certainly rose into Heaven too. No one doubts they were physical.

Yes, I consider Jesus to have been physical at some times after His coming out of the tomb.

But what of the arguments I put forth in the last post. Is Jesus physical now? If He is why can't I see Him? If He isn't when did He change? If He changed when does He change back if you feel He will return physically to earth?
Next if Jesus is going to return as He was when He met Thomas what of His wounds? Those wounds killed Him once, how does He live without the healing of the wounds? How does He live without blood? If we are going to be like Him how do we live without blood?
If we are going to be the same as Jesus after we are resurrected that means we would carry our wounds as well, how about if our death was caused by being beheaded?

That Jesus left in a physical state in Acts 1:11 is by no means a cut and dried conclusion in my mind.

Now as to whether the garden was the epitome of earthly creation I would ask these questions again.
Does the fact that Satan entered that garden fit with your view of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? It does not fit for me, but a Heavenly Kingdom does. Satan cannot ever go back there, even spiritually.

John
 
Let's say Adam had not sinned and Adam was allowed to stay in this paradise garden. Adam was told to go forth and multiply and we have no physical death to curb population. How would God have figured to house all these bodies of humans. If there had been no death thru time we each would have less than 1 square foot of space to exist on on planet earth as was in the first century.

Think about this: What would stop Adam's descendants from being curious about how God made things or industrious about how to manipulate the creation? Given their supreme and uncorrupted intellect, they could have easily developed systems to travel the universe. And why not have a universe if God had not intended man to traverse it and to fathom its hidden beauty just like God's vast love and greatness?

And again whose to say what is natural population growth? Did Adam jump Eve the second he saw her? No, he talked to her. Our problem is that we try to think the thoughts of the pure and innocents from our muddied perspective and we just can't.

So what is it, was God not done creating or did the mastermind of the universe not know what He was getting into?
This is a loaded question that sets up a "this or that" when the real answer is neither. I don't beleive anything was unintended to exist as planned from the very start; from the very moment after God said "very good". I beleive God had a plan for me many generations downline that somehow that was not muddled by original sin. (but this and others like it are interesting questions in and of themselves).

But what of the arguments I put forth in the last post. Is Jesus physical now? If He is why can't I see Him? If He isn't when did He change? If He changed when does He change back if you feel He will return physically to earth?
Is Elijah or Enoch physical? Yes, they are. Jesus is physical. The difference is that He is real and we live in the shadow land ; the broken and cracked creation.

Why can't you see Him? Because we are fundamentally unable to being but mere fallen creatures, shadows of what we should be. The change is significant enough to limit our vision, spiritually and physcially.

He never changed from being real. In a way, you create a false dichotomy between what is physcial and what is spiritual. I'm saying that perhaps these categories are wrongly applied and that Jesus is real and we are shadow with the kernal of real in our souls. So. I would expect the real to be able to pass through the shadow easily and partake in the shadowland and shadow food
Let's say Adam had not sinned and Adam was allowed to stay in this paradise garden. Adam was told to go forth and multiply and we have no physical death to curb population. How would God have figured to house all these bodies of humans. If there had been no death thru time we each would have less than 1 square foot of space to exist on on planet earth as was in the first century.

Think about this: What would stop Adam's descendants from being curious about how God made things or industrious about how to manipulate the creation? Given their supreme and uncorrupted intellect, they could have easily developed systems to travel the universe. And why not have a universe if God had not intended man to traverse it and to fathom its hidden beauty just like God's vast love and greatness?

And again whose to say what is natural population growth? Did Adam jump Eve the second he saw her? No, he talked to her. Our problem is that we try to think the thoughts of the pure and innocents from our muddied perspective and we just can't.

So what is it, was God not done creating or did the mastermind of the universe not know what He was getting into?
This is a loaded question that sets up a "this or that" when the real answer is neither. I don't believe anything was unintended to exist as planned from the very start; from the very moment after God said "very good". I believe God had a plan for me many generations down line that somehow that was not muddled by original sin. (but this and others like it are interesting questions in and of themselves).


But what of the arguments I put forth in the last post. Is Jesus physical now? If He is why can't I see Him? If He isn't when did He change? If He changed when does He change back if you feel He will return physically to earth? [/quote]
Is Elijah or Enoch physical? Yes, they are. Jesus is physical. The difference is that He is real and we live in the shadow land; the broken and cracked creation.

Why can't you see Him? Because we are fundamentally unable to being but mere fallen creatures, shadows of what we should be. The change is significant enough to limit our vision, spiritually and physically.

He never changed from being real. In a way, you create a false dichotomy between what is physical and what is spiritual. I'm saying that perhaps these categories are wrongly applied and that Jesus is real and we are shadow with the kernel of real in our souls. So. I would expect the real to be able to pass through the shadow easily and partake in the shadow land and shadow food. So He doesn’t need to change back. If anything, He cloaked His realness for a time in shadow (flesh). Though He had never fallen, He existed in the fallen world, by the fallen world rules which is living in the shadow as a shadow but not of the shadow so to speak.

So when Jesus returns physically to earth in great glory, it is because the “real†is great and glorious and the shadow can not reflect it properly. This is why the natural reaction of people to the holiness of God revealed or the even the glory of holy angels is to be fearful and hide. The shadow is naturally repelled by the real light. We, even now, are men with evil lips and thoughts. Though the real light shines in our hearts, we still exist in shadow while on earth as we know it.

Next if Jesus is going to return as He was when He met Thomas what of His wounds? Those wounds killed Him once, how does He live without the healing of the wounds? How does He live without blood? If we are going to be like Him how do we live without blood?
If we are going to be the same as Jesus after we are resurrected that means we would carry our wounds as well, how about if our death was caused by being beheaded?

What of His wounds? I think that we will still be able to see them (Zech 12:10) and that they will be a forever testimony of His love. I doubt they will be bloody, rather they will be scars. He represents the healed and restored Way, Truth and Life. He’s got blood again supernaturally. The irony is that all men will be scarless in heaven, while our Lord will bear the wounds His friends caused Him. Also, BTW, Adam and Eve will also be the only two people in Heaven with no belly button.

Now as to whether the garden was the epitome of earthly creation I would ask these questions again.
Does the fact that Satan entered that garden fit with your view of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? It does not fit for me, but a Heavenly Kingdom does. Satan cannot ever go back there, even spiritually.

Granted, there was definitely some sort of unique event that occurred that made Satan rebel. However, the fact that the Devil has access to God (as Job and Zechariah show) does not lessen in any way God’s heavenly Kingdom and authority, so this point you make about the Garden is moot. Rather, I would think the focus should rather be on asking why God just didn’t send the Devil to the Lake of Fire that He had prepared for the Devil and his angles the second they rebelled?
 
Hi Cameron,

Think about this: What would stop Adam's descendants from being curious about how God made things or industrious about how to manipulate the creation? Given their supreme and uncorrupted intellect, they could have easily developed systems to travel the universe. And why not have a universe if God had not intended man to traverse it and to fathom its hidden beauty just like God's vast love and greatness?

Well, I thought about it and no the verse was specific about earth:

Genesis 9
1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
And again whose to say what is natural population growth? Did Adam jump Eve the second he saw her? No, he talked to her. Our problem is that we try to think the thoughts of the pure and innocents from our muddied perspective and we just can't.

Actually it is exactly as I stated it. If populations were allowed to expand without the limiting effect of death, the planet would be over ran in a very short time. We have six billion here now after only a hundred thousand years with death as a factor.

This is a loaded question that sets up a "this or that" when the real answer is neither. I don't beleive anything was unintended to exist as planned from the very start; from the very moment after God said "very good". I beleive God had a plan for me many generations downline that somehow that was not muddled by original sin. (but this and others like it are interesting questions in and of themselves).

Well, it is an honest question really, did God not know that unlimited births without offsetting death would overpopulate the earth. I would know that, you would know that, so what was God saying?

Is Elijah or Enoch physical? Yes, they are.

Where does the bible say that? The last refernce to Elijah was as a spiritual appearance at the transfiguration. When did he change to physical?

Jesus is physical. The difference is that He is real and we live in the shadow land ; the broken and cracked creation.

Jesus is physical........well, Jesus is in Heaven, how do physical anythings get in there? Where flesh and blood can't go. Where we are going to be like Him and that is like angels. Jesus was spiritual when He met with Paul.....Nope , I wont buy that one.

Why can't you see Him? Because we are fundamentally unable to being but mere fallen creatures, shadows of what we should be. The change is significant enough to limit our vision, spiritually and physcially.

We are forgiven creatures because of the cross. I believe, therefore I qualify, therefore I should be able to see this physical Jesus...........I can't.

He never changed from being real. In a way, you create a false dichotomy between what is physcial and what is spiritual. I'm saying that perhaps these categories are wrongly applied and that Jesus is real and we are shadow with the kernal of real in our souls. So. I would expect the real to be able to pass through the shadow easily and partake in the shadowland and shadow food

No, I doubt He changed from being real in Christianity. So now you're saying that the spiritual (Jesus) is the real thing and we're just in a dream somehow.....Well, if it's that way there isn't much to worry about is there?

So when Jesus returns physically to earth in great glory, it is because the “real†is great and glorious and the shadow can not reflect it properly. This is why the natural reaction of people to the holiness of God revealed or the even the glory of holy angels is to be fearful and hide. The shadow is naturally repelled by the real light. We, even now, are men with evil lips and thoughts. Though the real light shines in our hearts, we still exist in shadow while on earth as we know it.

Firt you have to show me a verse that says Jesus returns to earth. He returns to the 'air' in 1 Thess 4, He returns to 'take' us to where He is...John 14, but I don't know a single verse that says Jesus Christ returns physically to earth.

He’s got blood again supernaturally.

Good, where did you read that?

Granted, there was definitely some sort of unique event that occurred that made Satan rebel. However, the fact that the Devil has access to God (as Job and Zechariah show) does not lessen in any way God’s heavenly Kingdom and authority, so this point you make about the Garden is moot. Rather, I would think the focus should rather be on asking why God just didn’t send the Devil to the Lake of Fire that He had prepared for the Devil and his angles the second they rebelled?

No, I meant the earthly garden, if that was the climax location, the ultimate utopea for mankind, how did Satan get in? Do you consider the devil can get near you in the eternal kingdom?

Rather, I would think the focus should rather be on asking why God just didn’t send the Devil to the Lake of Fire that He had prepared for the Devil and his angles the second they rebelled

God needed Satan to conduct the operations of the Great tribulation.

John
 
Well, I thought about it and no the verse was specific about earth:

Genesis 9
1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Actually you're thinking about Genesis 1:28

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

What else is God going to say? The earth is the center of His creation. God is there with man. He can talk to them anytime He wants and they can ask Him questions anytime they want. He is not hidden from them. You start with where you are. This statement does not eliminate any other future potential choices that are now seemingly hypothetical. How can you say that 6000 years later God may not have told them that it was Ok to fill the galaxy? Saying "earth" at the beginning does not eliminate other possibilities.

Actually it is exactly as I stated it. If populations were allowed to expand without the limiting effect of death, the planet would be over ran in a very short time. We have six billion here now after only a hundred thousand years with death as a factor.

No one denies this in the current scheme of things in this present post-Flood world. None of that is relevant. You are assuming that the created world that was “very good†is the world we live in by your statement. Again, we deal with what we do not know save from the fossil record, which shows that tropical plants existed in artic areas suggesting a greenhouse effect.

Also, people lived longer and presumably developed much slower than presently. Just look at the age of people when they had their first child. I don’t think that any had children before 35 before the Flood and the norm was about 100 when they started having children. So again, we can’t assume a uniformitarian view.

And I don’t think you got my last point regarding population growth either. It is quite debatable whether our current sexual fixations are what would have been considered normal if man had never fallen. They had all the time in the world. What was the rush for having children? I think you underestimate the cumulative power of all these items coupled with man’s creativity and curiosity and intelligence.

Where does the bible say that? The last refernce to Elijah was as a spiritual appearance at the transfiguration. When did he change to physical?

You are assuming that Elijah’s appearance at the transfiguration was spiritual. Actually, Peter thought they were physical, why else would he have wanted to build them a place to rest?

Mat 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."

So you point doesn’t hold water here.

Jesus is physical........well, Jesus is in Heaven, how do physical anythings get in there? Where flesh and blood can't go. Where we are going to be like Him and that is like angels. Jesus was spiritual when He met with Paul.....Nope , I wont buy that one.

Jesus is physical in the sense He is more real, real like Heaven. Flesh and blood, what we think of as “physical†is but shadow in comparison. Real people can go to real places like Heaven and shadow places like earth.

We are not going to be spiritual like the angels, we are going to be like them in that we are not given in marriage.
Mar 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Yes, that will be something that is different…kind of…in that I can’t really say that Adam and Eve were married either according to the Scriptures. Only that Gen 2:24 provides a pattern for marriage, which may semantics on my part. I’ll have to keep thinking about that one and be open-ended about it.

I’m only willing to go with what Jesus said specifically and that is that people don’t need to worry about who they are married to. They will be individuals like angels are, which was the context of the passage.

Why can't you see Him? Because we are fundamentally unable to being but mere fallen creatures, shadows of what we should be. The change is significant enough to limit our vision, spiritually and physcially.


We are forgiven creatures because of the cross. I believe, therefore I qualify, therefore I should be able to see this physical Jesus...........I can't.

Positionally forgiven … practically sinners/fallen. When we are glorified our practical state catches up to our positional state. As long as you are practically fallen, like we all are who live and breath, you can’t see Jesus at your will.

No, I doubt He changed from being real in Christianity. So now you're saying that the spiritual (Jesus) is the real thing and we're just in a dream somehow.....Well, if it's that way there isn't much to worry about is there?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Jesus is “real/true†and Adam and Eve were “real/true†and in the Fall, Adam and Eve became “shadows†of what they should have been, ghosts of reality, but the ghosts don’t realize it, they think they are “realâ€Â/true†because they have no other basis for quantifying the difference. Jesus never stopped being real, he cloaked Himself into our “realityâ€Â, a.k.a. “the fleshâ€Â. Don’t confuse what I’m saying with dreams. It is hard to think out of the box of the aquarium.

Firt you have to show me a verse that says Jesus returns to earth. He returns to the 'air' in 1 Thess 4, He returns to 'take' us to where He is...John 14, but I don't know a single verse that says Jesus Christ returns physically to earth.

There are a number of verses, but most people inoculate themselves from see it and couch them in other terms. You’ve already mentioned one, Acts 1:11.

Zec 14:4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives…
This is in the context of the Lord coming (14:1).

He’s got blood again supernaturally.
Good, where did you read that?

In the Bible where He walked around and talked and presumably ate fish; things that all use blood.
No, I meant the earthly garden, if that was the climax location, the ultimate utopea for mankind, how did Satan get in? Do you consider the devil can get near you in the eternal kingdom?

I feel like I should just repost what I wrote. You are aware of the references in Job and Zechariah of Satan coming before God? Are you saying that He should not have access to God in Heaven or the earthly Garden, which in my mind are no different because God is there in the earthly garden. Where God is, is Heaven. Don’t try to separate Heaven from God. The earthly garden was “real/true†until the Fall when it became “shadow/fallenâ€Â. Then God had to hide/cloak His glory because it could not contain His unveiled glory.

Rather, I would think the focus should rather be on asking why God just didn’t send the Devil to the Lake of Fire that He had prepared for the Devil and his angles the second they rebelled


God needed Satan to conduct the operations of the Great tribulation.

Sarcasm is fun. But the real answer is to display His justice to all creation because the sentence of eternal separation is as bad as it sounds.
 
Hio Cameron,

Acts 1:11 says He will return as He left...on the clouds. I can show many verses saying He will return on the clouds, 1 Thess 4 is one place. You show me a verse that says Jesus will return to planet earth. He did return to talk to Paul on the road to Damascus, but He was invisible when He did it.

Your idea about shadow of former self is pretty, but it changes nothing. The bible says what it says, let's go wihth it.

John
 
Acts 1:11 says He will return as He left...on the clouds. I can show many verses saying He will return on the clouds, 1 Thess 4 is one place. You show me a verse that says Jesus will return to planet earth. He did return to talk to Paul on the road to Damascus, but He was invisible when He did it.
You bring up two issues here; the 2nd Coming and clouds.

You haven’t said much about Zechariah 14. It says that when the Lord comes His feet will touch down on the Mt. of Olives. Many people see Acts 1:11 as a parallel to this passage. Both occur on the Mount of Olives, both involve the return of God from the perspective of the Mount of Olives and both can be seen.

Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

There is no reason to think that since we was standing on the Mount of Olives, that when He returns, He will not come back to that very spot on the Mount of Olives. Have you seen the Kidron Valley that is between the Mount of Olives and Mt. Zion? Look it up in the internet. Check out all the graves. Note that the Mount of Olives is to the east of Mt. Zion. People are buried there because they believe that this is where God will first come when He returns.

Secondly, there are other verses that place Jesus on earth after the 1st Coming such as Psalm 110 and Revelation 14:1 which both place Him on Mt. Zion. This leads me to my second point:, what is “parousiaâ€Â.

We translate the Greek word “parousia†as coming, but any English word is much narrower than the Greek. Perhaps part of the misunderstanding come from that. I suggest a word study. I’ve found that “parousia†originates from the concept of a visiting king who comes and stays a while at a city to listen to the people and interact with them. This is what Jesus did in the 1st “parousia and I do not think there is any reason to think differently about it in the 2nd “parousiaâ€Â. It doesn’t mean He will come back and float around in the clouds for a few years and yell down to us. This leads me to the third point, clouds.

Clouds are often associated with the appearance, the real appearance of God. Was the cloud on the Mt. of transfiguration real? Was Jesus real in His glory ?

Was the cloud on top of Mt. Sinai real. Was God really present there to write the 10 Commandments?

Was the pillar of cloud that represented God’s protection real?

These are just a few instances of real clouds and a real God appearing.

I think Matthew 24:29-31 and the 6th Seal through Rev. 7 and 1 Thess.4-5 all align with each other. They’ve got plenty of similarities. I say, that they speak to me of real clouds and real glory like the most immediate example of the Mt. of Transfiguration.

Some like to make them figurative and prets like using Matt. 26:64 to point to 70 AD. I say it makes more literal since because Caiaphas was not alive in 70 AD, they found his bones in his ossuary in 1992 with his wives’ too. Burial of bones in ossuaries ceased after 70 AD. So in the resurrection/rapture; the first event of the 2nd Coming, when Christ returns all eyes will see Him in His great glory and real clouds as He descends to the Mt. of Oilves.
 
Hi Cameron,

You bring up two issues here; the 2nd Coming and clouds.

No I bring up the issue of whether Acts 1:11 is a verse that proves that Jeus returns to earth physically and visibley.

I used Acts 10:40 to illustrate that Jeus is invisible at times after His resurrection.

ACts 10

40"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,

41(BF)not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

I don't accept your assumption that Jesus took on blood again and He stated to Thomas He had flesh and bones not flesh and blood.

Jesus disappearred from a table , walked into the room when the doors were shut...Yes that indicatesd spiritual to me. He was spiritual before He came to earth and He was spiritual when He returned to talk to Paul.

If you want to stay with the argument that He left physically , that is fine. I'll stay with the idea that He left in a spiritual body and will return on the clouds. If we continue the discussion it will eventually take us to where it becomes obvious that one of us (maybe both) are wrong.

You brought up Zech 14.

2For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city.

3Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.

4In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

In verse 3 notice the "as when He fights on a day of battle." part. Does God actually show up in battle garb with asword in His hand or does He controll things from an invisible point?

Next this is the Great tribulation that we are reading about and Jesus does not parousia until after the great tribulation. See the Olivet Discourse.

Yes, it says Jesus will stand on the Mt there and it will be split in two...I take this one symbolically and understand it to mean that the population is split in two, some accepting Christ and some rejecting Him. We either take this symbolically or many verses in the Olivet discourse. This is by Zechariah and the Olivet is by Christ Himself.

Here again we take opposite stands. Up to now both of our interpretations reconcile with the bible.

Secondly, there are other verses that place Jesus on earth after the 1st Coming such as Psalm 110 and Revelation 14:1 which both place Him on Mt. Zion
.

Psalm 110 provides no problem for either one of us.

1Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.

John was in the spirit when he saw the vision. These 144000 were in Heaven in Chapter 7..As you read further thru this you see that the great tribulation is still underway. Again Jesus does not parousia until after the great tribulation. So not only has Jesus not come to earth physically in these verses He hasn't filled the biblical bill of coming at all.
We translate the Greek word “parousia†as coming, but any English word is much narrower than the Greek. Perhaps part of the misunderstanding come from that. I suggest a word study. I’ve found that “parousia†originates from the concept of a visiting king who comes and stays a while at a city to listen to the people and interact with them. This is what Jesus did in the 1st “parousia and I do not think there is any reason to think differently about it in the 2nd “parousiaâ€Â. It doesn’t mean He will come back and float around in the clouds for a few years and yell down to us

When I refer to 'parousia' I mean the coming of the son of man on the clouds imediately after the great tribulation.
I don't think He literally floated around on the clouds either. I think it is a symbolic reference to Heaven as here:

1 Thess 4
7After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

As far as clouds go I see it like this. Jesus leaves Heaven on a white horse,
which somehow becomes a cloud. Clouds is just a way used to write a picture of spiritual travel. Clouds hid the spirits from view when it was necessary.

I want to look in to this ossuary bit. Thank you for printing that.

John
 
Act 10:40

(ALT) "This One God raised up on the third day and gave Him to become visible,

(AMP) But God raised Him to life on the third day and caused Him to be manifest (to be plainly seen),

(ASV) Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest,

(BBE) On the third day God gave him back to life, and let him be seen,

(Bishops) Hym God raysed vp the thirde daye, and shewed hym openly,

(CEV) But three days later, God raised him to life and let him be seen.

(DRB) Him God raised up the third day and gave him to be made manifest,

(EMTV) This Jesus God raised on the third day, and granted Him to become visible,

(ESV) but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,

(GNB) But God raised him from death three days later and caused him to appear,

(GW) but God brought him back to life on the third day. God didn't show him

(HCSB) God raised up this man on the third day and permitted Him to be seen,

(HNV) God raised him up the third day, and gave him to be revealed,

(ISV) but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear-

(KJV-1611) Him God raised vp the third day, and shewed him openly,

(LITV) God raised up this One the third day and gave to Him to become visible;

(MKJV) but God raised Him up the third day and showed Him openly,

(MRC) "God raised Him up on the third day, and gave Him to become manifest,

(MSG) But in three days God had him up, alive, and out where he could be seen.

(Murdock) And him did God raise up, on the third day; and caused him to be seen with naked eyes;

(WEB) God raised him up the third day, and gave him to be revealed,

(Webster) Him God raised the third day, and showed him openly;

(WNT) That same Jesus God raised to life on the third day, and permitted Him to appear unmistakably,

(YLT) `This one God did raise up the third day, and gave him to become manifest,

I don't thinks Acts 10:40 means what you beleive it means.

Here are a few comments on it. I really like Mattthew Henry's depth. I think they are right. Jesus simply showed the risen body as proof that He rose to those who believed.

:) JFB
Act 10:40-41 - showed him openly; Not to all the people--for it was not fitting that He should subject Himself, in His risen condition, to a second rejection in Person.

:) Gill
and showed him openly; in a glorious body, and yet numerically the same he before lived and suffered in, so as to be heard, seen, and handled; by which full proof was given of the truth of his resurrection, in which he appeared to be the conqueror over death and the grave.

:-D Barnes
Act 10:40 -
Showed him openly - Manifestly; so that there could be no deception, no doubt of his resurrection.

:D Henry
III. Because they had had no more certain information concerning this Jesus, Peter declares to them his resurrection from the dead, and the proofs of it, that they might not think that when he was slain there was an end of him. Probably, they had heard at Cesarea some talk of his having risen from the dead; but the talk of it was soon silenced by that vile suggestion of the Jews, that his disciples came by night and stole him away. And therefore Peter insists upon this as the main support of that word which preacheth peace by Jesus Christ.

1. The power by which he arose is incontestably divine (Act_10:40): Him God raised up the third day, which not only disproved all the calumnies and accusations he was laid under by men, but effectually proved God's acceptance of the satisfaction he made for the sin of man by the blood of his cross. He did not break prison, but had a legal discharge. God raised him up.

2. The proofs of his resurrection were incontestably clear; for God showed him openly. He gave him to be made manifest - edōken auton emphanē genesthaî to be visible, evidently so; so he appears, as that it appears beyond contradiction to be him, and not another. It was such a showing of him as amounted to a demonstration of the truth of his resurrection. He showed him not publicly indeed (it was not open in this sense), but evidently; not to all the people, who had been the witnesses of his death. By resisting all the evidences he had given them of his divine mission in his miracles, they had forfeited the favour of being eye-witnesses of this great proof of it. Those who immediately forged and promoted that lie of his being stolen away were justly given up to strong delusions to believe it, and not suffered to be undeceived by his being shown to all the people; and so much the greater shall be the blessedness of those who have not seen, and yet have believed –

Tertul. Apol. cap. 11. But, though all the people did not see him, a sufficient number saw him to attest the truth of his resurrection. The testator's declaring his last will and testament needs not to be before all the people; it is enough that it be done before a competent number of credible witnesses; so the resurrection of Christ was proved before sufficient witnesses.

(1.) They were not so by chance, but they were chosen before of God to be witnesses of it, and, in order to this, had their education under the Lord Jesus, and intimate converse with him, that, having known him so intimately before, they might the better be assured it was he.

(2.) They had not a sudden and transient view of him, but a great deal of free conversation with him: They did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. This implies that they saw him eat and drink, witness their dining with him at the sea of Tiberias, and the two disciples supping with him at Emmaus; and this proved that he had a true and real body. But this was not all; they saw him without any terror or consternation, which might have rendered them incompetent witnesses, for they saw him so frequently, and he conversed with them so familiarly, that they did eat and drink with him. It is brought as a proof of the clear view which the nobles of Israel had of the glory of God (Exo_24:11), that they saw God, and did eat and drink.

I don't see any where in Scripture that it says Jesus became spirit after raising bodily from the dead.
 
In verse 3 notice the "as when He fights on a day of battle." part. Does God actually show up in battle garb with asword in His hand or does He controll things from an invisible point?

He never shows up in battle garb. At the 6th Seal, the world is reeling in fear because they realize that the wrath of the Lamb is at hand. If you want to call that a “battle garb auraâ€Â, then yes.

Rev 6:16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,
Rev 6:17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

As I said, I see Matthew 24:29-31 and the 6th Seal as parallels with Acts 1:11 and Zech 14:1-4.


Next this is the Great tribulation that we are reading about and Jesus does not parousia until after the great tribulation. See the Olivet Discourse.

Of course. The 6th Seal comes after the martyrs of the 5th. And your point?


Yes, it says Jesus will stand on the Mt there and it will be split in two...I take this one symbolically and understand it to mean that the population is split in two, some accepting Christ and some rejecting Him. We either take this symbolically or many verses in the Olivet discourse. This is by Zechariah and the Olivet is by Christ Himself.

Here again we take opposite stands. Up to now both of our interpretations reconcile with the bible.

Jesus splits the mountain, I believe so that the 144,000 have a place to flee to (Azel). I think in the Great Trib, this last faithful remnant has been rounded up into some sort of camp in the Kidron valley in the vast graveyard. It is not only an affront to Jews who believe graveyards are unclean places, but also it sets up a place where they could be forced to bow to the image of the Beast up on Mt. Zion ( like a Daniel 3 repeat, but in Jerusalem).
 
Back
Top