Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Hi everybody, a new member with the same old questions here. I have been aware of preterism for a couple of years now and though I find much of it appealing I however have challenges with primarily 2 issues, one being the resurrection and the other being the end of the old covenant. These may even be the same question. Searching for discussions about these issues has led me here, Im sure it will be beneficial, so just bear with me guy.

 

How is 1 Cor 15:12-13 " Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised" to be understood 

Views: 7525

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Boyardee,

Agreed.  The entire train of events within the context of I Thess. 4, (the "rapture" text), describes what would happen at the day of Pentecost when Christ returned in AD 70, definitely not in our future.  It was a physical, bodily return at that time, on the Mt. of Olives, according to Zechariah 14:4-9.  Seen by every resurrected eye (Rev. 1:7), and also by some of those living at that time - but not all (Mark 9:1).

Hi Doug,

It's a compliment that you would take the time to read any of this. I appreciate that.  Apparently I have joined Boyardee in dishing up heaps of hyper-complex spaghetti, if you are having difficulty understanding my ramblings.

In the simplest terms I can employ, here is where I differ on resurrection from the majority on this website.  Consider the following question:

What exactly did Christ purchase with his blood sacrifice?  Was it only paying for the translation of our spirits and souls into the kingdom of God, or did it also involve the purchase of our fleshly bodies as well?

I cannot get around the statement in I Cor. 6:19,20 that the fleshly bodies of believers were also paid for by Christ's blood payment.  The whole context in this passage is to caution the Corinthians against abusing their fleshly bodies in acts of fornication, since Christ had bought their fleshly bodies, and they belonged to Him as a purchased possession.  

I can't see how Christ would pay the ultimate price for our fleshly bodies, only to later discard what He had bought at such a cost to Himself.  Does God ever throw away what He buys?  My opinion is that He doesn't.  The majority on this website would say that He does.  To throw away the fleshly bodies of believers after death, never to be resurrected and physically changed into an incorruptible form, is to throw the value of Christ's sacrifice into the trash can as well.  "God hath BOTH raised up the Lord, and will ALSO raise up us by his own power."  (I Cor. 6:14) The raising up is of the same nature.  

Whoever heard of siblings from the same Father who did not resemble each other physically? Christ is the "Firstborn among many brethren" which are already raised and also those which will be raised in the future into the same incorruptible form that He has.  The Firstfruits of the crop is of the same nature as the last fruits harvested.

To say this is not to be inconsistent with biblical interpretation.  The literal and the figurative weave in and out of each other throughout scripture, under both Old and New Covenants.  They are not mutually exclusive.  Which is one reason I am relatively sure that this physical planet is not headed for annihilation at the end of human history.  "I know that what God doeth, it shall be forever..."

Hi Patricia and Boyardee,

 

This morning I attempted to respond, but my wifi connection here in Costa Rica where I am vacationing, is less than reliable. So I am starting over. I am relaxed, since I took a zip line through the rain forest and then a volcanic mudbath. Hard work, but someone's got to do it! :)

Well, let me try to tackle several of your assumptions. Perhaps you will see things through some fresh eyes.

"What exactly did Christ purchase with his blood sacrifice?  Was it only paying for the translation of our spirits and souls into the kingdom of God, or did it also involve the purchase of our fleshly bodies as well?"

Let me turn that question around. What exactly did the first Adam do, and why was it "wrong" to take of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Easy answer is that they disobeyed God's direct command. Yet, God said "in the day you eat thereof you shall die"

So, did Adam and Eve literally die "on the day they ate"? I think you would agree that they didn't. What did happen then? Their bodies did not die, but they became estranged from God. Why? Well not just because they disobeyed God, but also because they took to themselves the privilege of determining what is good and bad, and man has been trying to figure that out ever since. But I submit to you that this is not something that is passed on genetically simply because we are human. Rather, it is something we teach to our children, who then follow in our floundering footsteps in their lives too, and so it is from that time till today. We are "going it alone" in this world.

But God also had another tree in that garden. It WAS allowed to be eaten of. That tree was the tree of life. Yet they chose not to eat of it. If they had, things would have been far different, for mankind would have chosen to let God decide what is good and bad, and the result would have been eternal life.

So, was God's original purpose for the firstman Adam to have eternal, physical life? If so, then why did God tell them that if they ate of the wrong tree, they would die "in that day"?

Do you believe that man was designed to live forever in this flesh? Do you believe that the original creation was 'without death" before Adam ate of the tree? If so, then we have another issue to solve before we tackle this one. 

But if you believe that eternal life (via the tree of life) was something that could be attained through obedience, then we can go from that. My premise is that mankind did indeed "die in that day he ate", but it wasn't his body, obviously. What then DID die? 

Before we answer that, let's answer another important question. What was God's intent in placing Adam and Eve in the garden? This is important, because there was a lot more at stake here in the creation story than traditional christianity teaches. What was Adam's job as the "first Adam" It was to be a priest to the whole earth and to teach them God's ways! Adam wasn't created as the ONLY man who had ever lived up to that point, but he WAS created as the first man into whom God breathed His Spirit. Scripture says so, when it says that God breathed into him and he"became a living soul, emphasis on the living. Do you catch that?

The other men not in the garden (which was a type of heaven on earth, i.e. paradise) were shut out of this specialness. They were "alive" yet dead to God. Adam and Eve were the only ones on earth designated for this special purpose. That purpose was none other than to be fruitful and multiply. When the bible says that Eve was the mother of all living, it meant that there was a specific lineage through whom God intended to spread the message of God's love for mankind.

But that "first man Adam" failed miserably. And so it was that Christ had to be sacrificed as the "Last Adam"

So, to repeat, what then DID die in that day? It was the man's relationship to God that imparted eternal life. 

When we say we are "redeemed", we mean that we are bought back. Bought back from what? Bought back from being cut off, from being dead to God. The death that Adam and Eve died was a spiritual death from having access to God. Which is why, of course, that they were driven out of the garden. Their access to God was no more, and they were accounted by God as being dead to Him. They were, in effect, disinherited.

So, fast forward to Christ. In him we are redeemed, just as in Adam we were lost to God. 

Then I ask you, where does the thought come from that there is any "redemption of the body" Would Adam and Eve have had anything to redeem in their bodies, had they not eaten of the fruit? Would Adam and Eve have lived forever in their original bodies in the Garden of Eden?

Orthodox Christianity teaches that man, in Adam, was originally immortal, but that somehow, when we accept Christ, we again put on immortality? How is that possible? If you believe this (the immortality of the soul), then how could Paul say in 1 Cor. 15 that we "put on immortality", if we already possess it? This false teaching, BTW, is why orthodox christianity teaches an eternal burning hell in which immortal souls suffer forever. Yet, scripture says "the soul that sins, it shall die" It also teaches that the wages of sin (the payment for sin) is death, and then turns right around and says BUT the GIFT of God is eternal life (immortality)

We are indeed dead to God before we accept Christ as the atonement for sin. When we accept what Christ did for us, we are then clothed with immortality immediately. Baptism symbolically brings us into the family of God where we live forever.

So what then is the purpose of this flesh? This flesh we possess is a "garment" that we put on at birth. We also put it off at our physical death.

Why then do we have it  at all? It is the vehicle given to us that allows us to function on this earth to do the will of God on this earth - nothing more! 

So, you may ask about Jesus and His fleshly body. OK, then what was this body given Him? Well, we know that it took many forms after His resurrection. At first, it was unrecognizable to Mary, because she thought it was a gardener. Only when Jesus revealed, spiritually, who He was did Mary recognize Him. Later, Jesus walked on the road to Emmaus and talked to the disciples, who also didn't recognize Him but their hearts "burned within them". 

Later, Thomas refused to believe it was Jesus, and only when he could touch Him did he believe.

When Jesus was on the beach eating fish, it was Jesus' voice calling to Peter that convinced Peter. And, BTW, at that point Jesus was eating fish not because He was hungry, but because He was showing them that He was the same Jesus they had known before, but now was "something else"

In the book of Revelation, John sees Jesus as a shining God in glory.

My point in saying this is that Jesus' body was whatever Jesus willed it to be. Sometimes it could be touched, and at other times it could pass through walls.

Who then was Jesus without His body? Was He "incomplete" if He didn't have this "body"? Well, since Jesus is God, would you EVER say God was incomplete unless He had a "body"?

These are all questions and concepts you need to answer for yourself, but I think I have given you enough to ponder for today. I will attempt to follow this thread if it doesn't become too burdensome. But I have found that when threads like this happen, it happens, as you say, that it turns into a spaghetti mess of ideas. I don't want to go there.

I believe we have to go back to origins to answer the questions of endings. If we don't understand how we got here, then our theology suffers because it doesn't take the whole story of the Bible into account. That is, we must understand the whole plan of God, and not just look at certain texts and try to prove a doctrine from that. That would kind of be like coming into a movie halfway through. You wouldn't understand the story and what you were watching. So it is with the history of the earth contained in the bible's stories. They are there to tell us the WHOLE story from beginning to end. Once we know how we got here, we can understand where we are going from here.

Peace to you all in Him

 

Doug

Really interesting stuff. But I see a challenge in where to begin. Just like Patricia had starting points leading to questions, so do you. What is needed is a more neutral approach (which I do not have). For example, you start by asking whether Adam died the day he ate the fruit and from there make conclusion. That becomes a challenge when people don't agree on how Adam died, and it becomes a matter of opinion. Watch out for this.

I do have a question for you, one I asked earlier but those who believe in the corporate resurrection (consistently, if I remember correctly) did not answer:

Who are the dead in 1 Cor 15:21 and who were in Adam in 1 Cor 15:22

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

I ask this because you spoke of Adam NOT being the first man but simply the first covenant man and that the death brought by Adam is relational death to God.

Why does the scripture say "all" die in Adam, yet "all" were never "in" Adam?

Hi Doug,

You always do post some engaging reading, even when I don't see eye-to-eye with everything. It's pithy and to the point, and easy to follow.

There's not much time today with deadlines pressing again, but I will offer a short response to your very first question:  "Did Adam and Eve literally die 'on the day they ate'?"  I tend to go with the margin notes in Hebrew for the rendering of that much-contested verse in Genesis 2:17.  It goes "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof, DYING thou shalt die."  It is the usual double emphasis literary technique that Hebrew uses to stress the certainty of an event.  But it also indicates that the physical dying process started that day, which would eventually and most certainly conclude with their physical death.  The death rattle began on that day, as far as their physical body was concerned.  Spiritual alienation began at once, as you have pointed out, which required their eviction from the garden that illustrated their separation from their Maker.  

I have refrained from commenting before now regarding the covenant creation paradigm (which you have touched on here) out of respect for the creators of this website.  I do not agree that Adam was not the first man created upon this earth.  I prefer to believe that Genesis 2:5 tells us that "there was not a man to till the ground" before Adam, the first human, was created and placed in the Garden in Gen 2:7-8.  

This goes along with my belief in a total of 7,000 years of human history on this planet from start to finish.  There is a vast amount of symbolism I encounter in scripture that leads me to this conclusion, not simply because I am going along with tradition for its own sake.  I won't elaborate, because we don't want to go adrift of the original post's intent, and I don't wish to antagonize those who hold fervently to covenant creation on this site.

Here is one point, though, upon which I think we can agree.  I no longer ascribe to the "eternal burning torment" for unbelievers in the Lake of Fire (which was strictly a fiery, AD 70, Jerusalem phenomenon). There is a resurrection for the unjust, but only to render them capable of standing before God the judge of all the earth before they are destroyed, both body and soul.  I agree with you that the opposite of eternal life is not eternal torment - it's permanent destruction.

We would also agree on your statement that the risen body of Christ is whatever form in which He willed it to appear.  That "other form" in which Jesus appeared on the road to Emmaus was but one shape which He could adopt to manifest Himself to His disciples.  He turned into a "shape-shifter", if you will, which could appear or disappear at His discretion - a feature of something that is an eternal being ("...the things which are not seen are eternal...").  But it still utilized the same bloodless body which arose from that sepulchre - just endued with new properties, as ours will be also at the end of the 7,000th year of human history.  He still retains that body today as our ever-living, interceding high priest in human form.

Hope you continue to have an enjoyable, safe vacation Doug.

Real quick, as I HAVE to go snorkeling in a bit ;)

You said that "dying you shall die" means that the physical dying process started that day. I am curious how you get that! Please provide your logic and/or scripture to back up that a physical dying process started on that day.

Just so you know, I am of the opinion this "dying you shall die" clearly shows that there was no "process" that started. Instead, it means just what it says, namely that ON THAT DAY YOU EAT, YOU WILL DIE. No "process" began at all. They did indeed die, just the same as at the moment you accept Christ and are baptized, you become alive forever. There is no "process" that begins happening at baptism. God accounts you as fully in His family the moment you accept Christ. Why would the death of Adam begin a process of dying when salvation, the opposite of death, doesn't start a process of living?

Well, glad to see you agree with me on eternal, conscious torment. You and I are totally contrary to orthodoxy on this point. I still can't fathom why orthodoxy insists on eternal torment. I also agree with you that there will be a "second chance" although I instead call it a "first chance" for the vast majority of mankind. There is no place in scripture that I can find that tells me that this life is the only opportunity for salvation. Instead, I see this life as a way for mankind to be shown, through the proof of history that the "knowledge of good and evil" that mankind chose in Adam cannot EVER lead to righteousness.

As far as Christ having a body, I don't necessarily think that "having a body" is excluded by our resurrection to newness of life, but I don't think it NECESSARY, as you do. I think of what we shall be in heaven as being immortal beings with an existence akin to angels (but higher), and if we so choose, we can put on our bodies, just like a garment is put on. Hmm. Wonder where I got that allusion ;)

Pura Vida

Hie Doug,

I agree that Adam did die the day he ate the fruit i.e. in a non-physical way. As to how that encompasses physical death as well, I understand it  in the sense of e.g. Gen 20:3 i.e. the moment Adam ate the fruit, he sealed his fate to die physically.

Boyardee,

Consider the ramifications and logic of what you are saying. You are saying, in essence, that Adam and Eve were immortal beings prior to eating the fruit, since, had they NOT eaten the fruit, they would live forever and would not die physically. 

First of all, this negates any need for salvation, since salvation is eternal life. Secondly, why would there be a "Tree of Life" also in the garden, if life was not needed because they were already immortal? Thirdly, if you believe that there was no death at all on earth prior to Adam eating the fruit, would Adam even understand the concept of death? Fourthly, if there was no death at all, how would it be possible for God to grow His kingdom forever and ever, since it is of necessity that there be physical death to make room for new babies, as well as the resources to support an "unlimited" amount of people, because, after all, God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.

God made Adam and Eve to eventually die physically. There is nothing in scripture that hints at their pre-fall immortality. That is a fabrication of later theological reasoning.

The death that Adam died was the death of the innocence they had. That innocence was a basic ignorance of "the knowledge of good and evil" Their real sin was disobedience to a direct command God gave them. God was testing to see if they would choose life or choose death. This was the same question God asked His people at Sinai (See Deuteronomy 28) I lay before you blessings and cursings...therefore choose life! This is what God has ALWAYS asked of man. Choose life by choosing to listen to me, your God, who DOES have all the answers. I alone (says God) have the answers to what is right, and what is wrong. Adam chose to "go it alone" and mankind has been doing the same thing ever since.

This is even why the concept of an "inherited" tendency to do evil is wrong. My children do not inherit, genetically, the tendency to sin. That is something I teach them, and something my parents taught me, and son on and so on, all the way back to Adam. What has happened since Adam is because He and Eve CHOSE to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, God has cut them off from His presence and let them decide those things, because they chose those things.

Since no man CAN know right and wrong, apart from God, and since mankind cannot choose the tree of life (because access to it was denied after the fall), the only way back to a right relationship with God is through the second man Adam, Jesus Christ. In Him we are made right, and since we no longer choose to decide for ourselves right and wrong, we are restored to a right relationship with God.

And when we do sin (because we are still UNlearning sin by our daily sanctification), the atonement of Christ is there in our stead.

It is all such a beautiful picture of God restoring paradise to His people, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Through the first Adam we have death, but through the second Adam, we have eternal life. We have access to the tree of Life, which was denied to us through Adam.

Hie Doug

 

Im taking this opportunity to address some issues you raised earlier.

 

You are saying, in essence, that Adam and Eve were immortal beings prior to eating the fruit

What I believe is that Adam would not be allowed to go on indefinitely without choosing one of the trees. Thus the time he lived before choosing a tree was probation and would have to end at some point. Adam was thus not immortal, that could only be attained by eating from the tree of life.

 

First of all, this negates any need for salvation, since salvation is eternal life.

Not so, eternal life is not unending life. Eternal life is the quality of relationship with God John 17:3

 

Thirdly, if you believe that there was no death at all on earth prior to Adam…

I am an Old Earther and don’t see anything against saying death was present when Adam was created, so I have no qualms with dinosaurs, star light, death etc yet I still find the Bible teaching physical death on man being brought by sin and salvation being consummated by destruction of physical death. I haven’t worked all of it out but that is where Im currently at.

 

Fourthly, if there was no death at all, how would it be possible for God to grow His kingdom forever and ever

God is surely not limited to our comprehension. That goes too for how God can recover all the molecules in resurrection. I believe God can handle everything even when our minds can’t.

 

God made Adam and Eve to eventually die physically. There is nothing in scripture that hints at their pre-fall immortality.

God says that they would die when they eat the tree of knowledge, by implication if they wouldn’t eat it they would live. The burden of proof is on you here (just beware of circular reasoning).

Boyardee,

Thanks for engaging me.

If you are NOT saying "in essence" that Adam and Eve were immortal, well and good. I took that from your earlier statements that implied you believed they were immortal at their creations.

I agree that salvation is not unending life. I should have clarified my statement. After all, if you had unending life in hell, you would not have salvation, just unending life. But, I do believe that the quality of our salvation includes unending life.

I too am an "old earther" Let me again clarify how I believe re: Adam's death...I believe Adam and Eve were not made physically immortal. Therefore, they could indeed die physically, just as all other created physical beings die. I believe they were not the only "men" on earth at the moment of their creations, and when the bible described their creation, it wasn't speaking of only of their physical creation. In fact, I believe that in addition to their physical creations, that the "breath of life" God breathed into them was not just air, but instead was a metaphor for God breathing into them a unique ability to commune with Him. It was their "soul", so to speak. It was the knowledge of God inasmuch as we (natural men) have the knowledge of God in our souls. This is why Romans says that the world is "without excuse" re: the knowledge of God. 

However, those "other men" in existence at Adam's unique creation did not have this ability to know God. They were effectively brute beasts, just eking out an existence on earth as best they could without the knowledge of God's existence.

Biblically, Genesis speaks of God placing a garden "east of Eden", into which He placed the man He had made. Eden, by implication, was a pre-existing place, just as the four rivers were pre-existing places. So, the garden represented a special place where a special race of people would be created and raised up so they could start the process of having relationships with the true God. They failed in that regard, and so were driven out of the garden, representing being driven out of paradise and the chance for eternal life (relationship with God) by eating of the tree of life. Since then, Adam and Eve's offspring have been doing just that (fending for themselves without access to God) until Jesus Christ came as the second Adam and fulfilled what Adam did not.

On your fourth reply to me, you said God is not limited by our comprehension. Well, of course. I wasn't talking about God's ability, I was speaking of physical death and physical people being able to multiply on this planet. There is a finite amount of space on earth. Without physical death, that finite space would be filled very shortly. So, unless you are talking about the idea of there being no physical death and mankind somehow being transported to other planets as this earth fills up, then there is no possibility of an eternally physically growing kingdom. I do not believe God intended for planetary travel, but instead intended earth to be mankind's home as long as he lives (which is limited in time so that more people may be born as the older generations die) I hope that clarifies it.

Finally, your logic escapes me, since you said "by implication" they would live by not eating it. Not so! Actually, God said that all the trees of the garden were given for food. You do understand that food is necessary for metabolism. So, why did God give "other food" if they didn't need to eat to live? My statement stands that there is nothing scripturally that tells us they were immortal pre-fall. And, that is what you said too! So, which is it? Do you believe Adam was immortal, or not?

First let me remind you of my comment regarding 1 Cor 15 which I need clarity from you:

>As you adequately put: a spiritual resurrection is about new life

>Now if some brethren (for it is clear these people were among believers) >at Corinth were denying spiritual resurrection then what did they >believe? What was the purpose of converting to Christianity? Denying a >spiritual resurrection is simply denying Christianity. You can't be a >Christian yet deny spiritual resurrection thus they could not have been >denying a spiritual resurrection.

 

Coming now to the most recent post...

There could be an issue of definitions here pertaining immortality. For me immortality is inability to die i.e. when something is immortal it CANNOT be killed. So this has to do with inability to die rather than being out of the reach of death (will try explain that just now). I may be wrong but I think you can freeze an embryo indefinitely but that doesn’t make it immortal. But as long as it remains frozen it will never die. When frozen the embryo is “out of the reach of death” but in its nature/constitution does not have anything that gives it “inability to die”. So as long as Adam and Eve we still on probation before choosing the tree of life or of knowledge (frozen) they were out of the reach of death but that did not change that their nature did not have immortality.

Or you could consider a gold fish in a bowl, it is free from predators but its nature hasn’t changed. Similarly I understand Adam and Eve being free from death during their probation but not as a result of something immortal in their constitution/nature. So its not that Adam and Eve could not die, rather it is simply that they would not die.

(I gave those examples loosely, they are not to be taken as complete reflections of what I mean but simply to make a point)

 

There is a finite amount of space on earth. Without physical death, that finite space would be filled very shortly.

 

I understood you and rephrase what you are saying as that God cannot have an infinite number of people on finite space with finite resources. Thus my answer was God is not limited to what we can comprehend, He can have infinite people on finite resources (if He so chooses). I choose to have a big God who is beyond all including what I can’t explain, imagine or comprehend.

 

Finally, your logic escapes me, since you said "by implication" they would live by not eating it. Not so! Actually, God said that all the trees of the garden were given for food. You do understand that food is necessary for metabolism. So, why did God give "other food" if they didn't need to eat to live? My statement stands that there is nothing scripturally that tells us they were immortal pre-fall. And, that is what you said too! So, which is it? Do you believe Adam was immortal, or not?

 

Adam was not immortal. Sorry there, I was reducing keyboard time, so I thought you would understand what I meant from the larger context of our discussion, let me say the phrase in full: “not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil

Hope that clears it.

 

But you seem to say the rest of the trees where for metabolism but not the tree of life or knowledge of good and evil. How do you understand trees and animal in the creation story?

     and

How do you understand God’s sentence on the couple:

1)      From dust you are and to dust you shall return

2)      Has become like us… lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever

That says physical death to me.

BRD,

Lots of questions!!!:) But good ones nevertheless...

Your take on "immortality" is interesting. Goldfish in a bowl analogy for example... Well, consider that if a goldfish is NOT eaten, he will eventually die of old age. Why? Because there is "programming" in his genes that give him an expiration date, just like all organisms.

The "programming" I refer to is what I believe Adam had. He did indeed have an expiration date, thus no immortality. To me, immortality is something granted by God to His creatures, not something inherently created within us by virtue of us being created. It is a gift from God, and we know that the gifts of God "are without repentance", meaning God doesn't take back what He gives - ever! If you are given something by God, you may misuse it, but He won't take it from you. OTOH, you can throw it away. I won't discuss the question of "conditional immortality", since that is an existential question that, I think, isn't answered by scripture. I would simply point that question to the issue of whether angels (including demons) can die. Supposedly they are immortal. But what if they chose to die? Can they? My gut says yes, since even Jesus "died" and was resurrected. But again, that is an existential question.

But back to Adam. I believe he did not have any kind of "conditional immortality", since if he did, then why would God say "Lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever", if he already was immortal? He needed, even before his fall, to have eternal life as a relationship with God that was right. Prior to his fall, he was in a state of "ignorant bliss", meaning he had neither life OR death. He was in a position of needing to choose between one or the other. He made the wrong choice, which led to his and all mankind's downfall and estrangement from God. 

So why did God then stop him from eating of the tree of life? Because to eat of that tree would stop the plan of God then and there. After Adam sinned, it became necessary for God to grow His kingdom another way. God determined that Adam's progeny would be the building block to teach mankind a lesson and to grow more sons and daughters for the kingdom. In fullness of time, Jesus came and completed Adam's original assignment. Had Adam eaten of the tree of life (conversion), after his fall, then history would have taken an entirely different course, and  not one God intended. That's why they had to be driven out of the garden. An angel guarded the gates of Eden thereafter to keep all men away until the times were right. Jesus was the tree of life of course, and his appearance was the opening of the gates of paradise restored to mankind's access.

One final comment...

"Thus my answer was God is not limited to what we can comprehend, He can have infinite people on finite resources (if He so chooses). I choose to have a big God who is beyond all including what I can’t explain, imagine or comprehend."

While it's true God can do anything, consider that God doesn't do anything that is illogical or that breaks His own laws of creation. He works within the bounds of time and space. I find this to be absolutely true in all cases. Without those laws, we could not have science that works. We could not predict how things would happen well enough to do things like send probes to Mars. The universe behaves predictably, just as we can predict that if we sin, we still have to pay in our flesh for the things we did, even though in heaven we are forgiven. God gave us predictability.

Now, as to miracles, those are things out of the norm. They "break" the laws of physics, but not really. Even a miracle, like a divine healing, brings together the elements of the physical to make them balanced and once again "work" as they are designed to work. That is what a physical healing is. God uses the elements He created to do a "reboot" of the physical. God simply intervenes to fix that which is broken.

So yes, God can do anything. But He chose to design the universe within the bounds of its design, nothing more. That's why I used the logic I did, since to go outside the bounds of God's design is indeed illogical. In short, if I cannot count on God to obey His own rules, then can I depend on Him to save me? He says "these are the rules I have made", and I can ABSOLUTELY count on those rules always being obeyed by God. That's why "infinite people on finite resources" makes no sense, nor do I believe God would ever do that. God isn't capricious and doesn't break His own rules.

RSS

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 26. 6 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service