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
You stated a couple of things that are conjecture, not fact from scripture.
For example, how in the world did you put the Mt. 27 saints into the role of being the 144,000? That isn't supportable.
Also, you said "We legally require a perfect human body form in heaven (who is also the divine God at the same time) to represent us as a deathless high priest." Please support this opinion from scripture. I don't see it. Where is this "legal" requirement found that there has to be a human body in heaven representing us?
Since you asked so nicely... :-)
Sure, it's supportable from scripture for the 144,000 to be the Matt. 27:52-53 resurrected saints. I wouldn't put this forward unless I was absolutely certain from comparing scriptures with each other. I spoke about those Matt. 27 saints at great length on your other post you called "This Site Active?", and gave some links there to posts where I have commented on this theme elsewhere.
Every bit of the description of the 144,000 matches who the Matt. 27 saints were or what they did on that resurrection day and following.
#1) The 144,000 were called the "Firstfruits unto God and the Lamb" (Rev. 14:4). For one thing, if it mentions "the Lamb" here, then we are talking about a time connected with Christ's crucifixion as the "Lamb of God". For another thing, Jesus was also called the "Firstfruits of them that slept" in I Cor. 15:20, 23. Christ and the 144,000 shared the same "Firstfruits" resurrection title. That means the 144,00 ARE the Matt. 27 resurrected saints. They shared the same title with Christ because they shared the same event of the "First Resurrection" of the "Firstfruits", raised together at the same time. The Old Testament type for this NT event is the barley harvest sheaf handful offered in the temple at Passover week (the Matt. 27 saints) along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Christ, the Lamb of God) - Leviticus 23:9-12.
#2) The 144,000 are called "virgins", because there is no marrying or giving in marriage in the resurrected state, according to Christ (Luke 20:35).
#3) The 144,000 were said to have been "redeemed from the earth" (Rev. 14:4). Preterists are on target to say that most of the references to the "earth" (ge) in Revelation are to the "land of Israel". That means these 144,000 were "purchased" out of a location that was in the land of Israel, which is what happened to the Matt. 27 saints, with the redemption of their bodies out of the graves broken by the Jerusalem earthquake after Christ's crucifixion.
#4) The 144,000 are described as being "without fault" before the throne of God, and with no guile or deceit in their mouth. This can only be true of a resurrected saint, who has sinless perfection after they have been "made perfect" in spirit, body and soul. Jude 24 speaks of the living saints who would be presented "faultless" before the glory of God's presence in the resurrection.
These 144,000 Firsfruits saints already possessed that "faultless" condition, and it applies to the entire group of Matt. 27 saints, because it was ONLY saints that were raised at that "First Resurrection", according to Matt. 27:52-53.
#5) The 144,000 STOOD ON MOUNT ZION WITH THE LAMB (a post-crucifixion-of-the-Lamb stance) in Rev. 14:1. This is Mount Zion, the temple zone, in the actual physical city of Jerusalem. The Matt. 27 saints did this very thing on resurrection day when they "came out of the graves after His resurrection and WENT INTO THE HOLY CITY, and appeared unto many."
#6) The 144,000 as listed in Rev. 7:4-8 came from identifiable tribes of Israel (minus Ephraim and Dan), which dates this group's appearance to a time before the power of the holy people was shattered, leaving them neither "root" (ancestors), nor "branch" (progeny) of their individual tribes (Dan 12:7, and Mal 4:1). Tribal distinctions were obliterated in AD 70 in God's eyes, with the ancestral records going up in temple smoke, as God intended.
And since the earthquake on the day of Christ's crucifixion was in Jerusalem's vicinity, it was Jewish graves that were opened up on that day - with literal members from each of those tribes that were raised.
#7) The 144,000 were said to follow the Lamb wherever He went (Rev. 14:4). Why is it a stretch to think that Jesus was in Jerusalem at the temple with these 144,000 of Matt. 27 saints? We know that He showed Himself to the eleven disciples in Jerusalem that evening after the resurrection (Luke 24:33-36).
And besides this, the Matt. 27 saints were brought out of the grave WITH HIM, as the "multitude of captives" ascending out of the grave in Ephesians 4:8. Why would they not have kept following Him for as long as He was on earth for those 40 days? And they did NOT ascend with Him from the Mount of Olives, because Christ left this world from that location unaccompanied. He left two men in white apparel (doesn't explicitly say angels, so it's possible they were two of the 144,000 Firstfruits Matt. 27 saints) to reassure the disciples of Christ's return to the Mount of Olives in the same manner as He went into heaven from there.
These are just some basic introductory texts that help identify the Matt. 27 saints as the 144,000 Firstfruits of Rev. 14:4. There are quite a few more from both the Old and New Testaments that explain the purpose for the Matt. 27 saints' mission in those first-century days, but I haven't time to repeat them all here.
As to the last point you made, Doug, requesting proof that we legally require a perfect human body form who is also divinity as our representative, here are some texts that prove (at least to me) that Jesus the God-Man still necessarily retains His resurrected human form as our mediator in heaven today. This will also address some of Brother Les' comments at the same time.
In the first place, the Old Testament role of high priest could not be filled by a stranger outside of Israel - they had to be a native-born Israelite. Not only that, but they had to descend from the chosen tribe of Levi; and not only that, but a son of Aaron; and not only that, but a blemish-free son of Aaron; and not only that, but after the post-exilic return, only one from Zadok's family line. The nation of Israel's high priest that represented them before God had to be one of their own - like unto themselves - a law which pre-exiled Israel had broken.
In Ezekiel 44:7, God accused Israel of bringing high priests into His sanctuary that were "strangers, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary to pollute it..." The Levites as a whole had sinned against this rule, and for that sin, all but the family of Zadok were removed from serving in the high priesthood role. God was and is VERY PARTICULAR about who is to represent His people as their high priest.
#1) Hebrews 2:16-17 - This text tells us that Jesus took up the cause of the seed of Abraham, but He did not take up the cause of the angels - whose body forms were composed of a different type of "celestial" flesh (I Cor. 15:40). "Therefore, in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren", (And why take up a fleshly body like that of human-kind? The reason for taking up - and keeping - a form composed of "terrestrial" flesh was...) "that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
This high-priestly office is a continuing ministry for Christ, so that "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous." If Christ had abandoned His human form, He would have become a "stranger" to us, and could have no longer represented our cause before the Father as being one of us. This point connects the type of the OT legal requirements for a high priest with the later anti-type legal requirement of a God-Man mediator established in an "unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:24).
#2) I Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus." This is written, of course, decades after the crucifixion, but Jesus Christ was and still is designated as being MAN - not just a spirit - acting as our one-and-only mediator for all time.
#3) John 5:26-27 "For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself; And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of MAN." Here, we see that the coming resurrection judgment in John 5:28,29 (the AD 70 resurrection of just and unjust) would be executed by the Son of MAN. At that time of AD 70, Christ would appear again in the same human form, with every justifiable right to exact vengeance on those who had rejected Him while in that very body of flesh, and who had conspired to crucify Him in that human form. This was justice on display, and they would "look on Him whom they had pierced" ((Rev. 1:7), recognizing the same One they had crucified.
#4) Acts 17:30,31 - This verse is in the same category as the one above, with God the Son showing up in His recognizable human form to exercise judgment on humanity AS A MAN. "And the times past of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness BY THAT MAN whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." Jesus still retained His human form of a man in the AD 70 judgment on the world of humanity.
#5) Daniel 7:13 - There is some debate concerning this passage as to whether the occasion is the ascension of Christ or the AD 70 judgment (or the end of the world for futurists). From the details involved, I see this as the AD 33 ascension, when Jesus as the SON OF MAN is brought near to the Ancient of Days (as the Ezekiel 44:15 Zadok high priesthood was allowed to come near to minister in the sanctuary). Christ as the Son of Man on this occasion was accompanied by glory clouds in heaven when, as the Son of MAN, he was given the kingdom. This single kingdom I take to be the unchangeable high priesthood being given to Christ at the ascension. But it is pertinent to the point I am addressing that Jesus was assuming this high priesthood role with the title of the SON OF MAN: a title that has always been used in scripture to emphasize that He also shares a human identity with us.
#6) Revelation 14:14-16 - Again, this verse is a picture of the AD 33 resurrection and ascension of the God-Man, showing the Matt. 27 sickle-harvested "Firstfruits" of Rev. 14:4, with the single-crowned SON OF MAN sitting on the same glory cloud of heaven as in Daniel 7:13. This was a "dried" harvest from the earth (the land of Israel's graves), so this sickle-harvest shows that "the earth (land of Israel) was harvested". That's the graves around Jerusalem being opened in Matt. 27:52-53. And it was the human "Son of Man" emphasized as the harvester.
#7) Romans 6:9,10 - "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE; Death hath no more dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died unto sin ONCE; But in that HE LIVETH" (present tense for the Romans), "He liveth unto God." This runs counter to the idea that the flesh and bones of Christ's risen form died again when He ascended. Everything that came out of the grave that was encompassed in the being of the risen Christ remained alive.
That would include His body of flesh and bones also. We can't chip away pieces of this complete being that composed the risen Christ (by saying that the flesh part of Him died again) without contradicting this Romans 6:9,10 text that says Christ would not die again a second time.
#8) I Corinthians 15:8 - This is the verse where Paul testifies of actually seeing the risen Lord (on the road to Damascus), in the same manner that the disciples had seen the actual flesh-and-bones body of Christ for those 40 days before He ascended. The requirements for apostleship included being an eye-witness of the Son of Man in His human form (as John also testified in John 1:14 that they had seen Christ in His "only-begotten" state after the day of resurrection.) Since Paul also was an eye-witness of the risen Christ - however belated - he could qualify as an apostle back then.
In addition, this "only-begotten" term was still true as of that point when John wrote his epistle. That term only meant that, as of that time in history, Jesus was the only one born of woman that God had as yet allowed into heaven in a perfected, bodily-resurrected state. That is how Christ claims the title of the "First-begotten" on the day of His resurrection. Even though others had also made it "above ground" before Him, none had as yet ascended to heaven in that bodily-resurrected state.
Okay, Doug, you didn't ask for an attempt at a treatise, but there you have it - no charge!
Hi IT guy,
You had some simplified questions, since what I wrote apparently sounded confusing to you. You wrote:
#1) "Is being a son of Adam in reference to the physical body and its makeup?" YES, in part. But more than that, it also shows that we have inherited the same sin nature that is at enmity with God from conception forward. That's why God uses the term "adoption" when we become sons of God, because we were first of all born from another earthly father (i.e., generated by a fallen Adam, both physically and spiritually), and had to be "adopted" out of that earthly family by a heavenly Father.
#2) "Was Jesus a son of Adam?" NO, He was "The Son of Man". We never see Him called a son of Adam, but we DO see Him titled as "The Son of Man" (anthropou - meaning generically of the species of humankind) because He was called the "SEED (singular) of the WOMAN" - whose gender was not ever used in the representative sense. We as women can nurture life, but we cannot initiate life or generate it. That is the idea behind "headship", or being the source or origin of a family. As the Seed of the WOMAN, Christ was fully a part of the human race, as it was originally created; with innocence, and with no sin nature before the Fall.
#3) "Was Jesus' physical body the same as descendants of Adam?" NO, Jesus' physical body was the same as Adam's was BEFORE THE FALL. As originally created, that included a probationary possibility of dying if He committed sin while in that body (which Adam and Eve did). Since Christ, unlike Adam, NEVER sinned, that meant He had to voluntarily give up His life, because that life could not be taken away from one that was without sin. ("NO man taketh if from me, but I lay it down of myself" - John 10:17-18).
#4) "Does being a son of Adam mean and necessitate having an earthy body?" YES, because from creation forward, everything produced "after its kind". Therefore if a sin-free Adam had generated children while in that state in the Garden, the children would have been replicas of a sin-free Adam, with the same probationary status of the possibility of dying if they themselves ever sinned.
As it turned out, Adam fell from the beginning, and generated fallen offspring with that same sin nature from conception. To rescue anyone from being in the same family of fallen creatures originally generated from the First Adam, we have to be "adopted" out of that family by a heavenly Father, so that we will not perish - "not an hair of our heads" will go out of existence, because everything that makes up our total being will be finally resurrected and made immortal.
You also asked if there were any scriptures speaking of a mass death of humanity at the coming of Christ. As groundwork for that proposal, these are the facts of scripture that I know to be true.
#1) "There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not." and "There is none righteous, no, not one."
#2) "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." and "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die, but after this the judgment."
#3) "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive the things done in our body, whether they be good or whether they be evil."
#4) "No man can see me and live", and "no man hath seen God at any time."
#5) "Before me every knee shall bow..."
#6) The apostle Paul told Felix that "there is ABOUT TO BE A RESURRECTION of the dead, both the just and the unjust." This means that the resurrection of AD 70 has come and gone in the end of that Mosaic Age.
We are now in the first one of those "Ages (plural) that are coming" that Paul mentioned in Ephesians 2:7. This means that there is another age of some kind after this one we are currently in. This means that at the closure of THIS AGE of the New Covenant, we can expect a kind of transition. That transition I believe scripture teaches will be the 3rd harvest of human bodies out of the ground to stand in judgment. This matches the 3 harvest feast celebrations of the Old Testament.
Just as in the AD 70 resurrection, when Jesus promised to "bring to corruption" (a physical death - Rev. 11:18 b) "them that corrupt the earth" by the end of the AD 70 siege, in the same manner, I believe God will also do the same for the wicked in "bringing them to corruption" in mass effect at the end of the NC Age we are currently in.
God is a promise-keeping God. He has told us that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die", and "it is appointed unto men once to die...", and that "sin when it is finished bringeth forth death". God is OBLIGATED to keep this promise. Does it matter if this promise is fulfilled simultaneously for everyone alive at the end of this New Covenant Age? Is that fate any worse than spreading that inevitable sentence of death over the millennia? None throughout history have escaped this inevitable sentence of dying ONCE; not even believers. In our case, however, Christ also promised that "whosoever believes in me shall in no wise die forever."
IT guy, you know that I have set forth before on this "Resurrection" post a paradigm with 3 physical resurrections spread over all of human history: the "First Resurrection" of the Firstfruits in AD 33 at Passover week: the second resurrection in AD 70 at the Day of Pentecost; and in our future, the third resurrection connected with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement preceding it.
The 10th day of the 7th month was the Day of Atonement when the entire nation without exception was to humble themselves in a fast day with absolutely no work being done. That 10th day was also the day when the trumpet of Jubilee was to sound in the fiftieth year. That trumpet "proclaimed liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof" when "ye shall return every man unto his possession." (Lev. 25:9-10). This "returning" pictures the restoration of God's people in a mass resurrection of their bodies to immortal life. Just as every one of God's people without exception were to be "humbled" by the fast from the evening of the 9th day until the evening of the 10th day, (Lev. 23:27,32), I believe that represents the simultaneous death of God's people at that evening of the 9th day, which started that day of Jubilee. The sounding of the Jubilee trumpet I believe raises God's people to life again on the evening of the 10th day. This is when they "return to their possession" in resurrected bodies made immortal.
The restriction of no work done on that Sabbath day of atonement combined with no eating illustrates to me a state of rest in death for the entire family of God's people. Those who are NOT the people of God's family do not participate in "returning to their possession" in perfected, resurrected bodies. And the only thing that could accomplish this simultaneous death of all humanity in one day - both children of God and those who are not - would be the revelation of God in all His glory to their view. Under the Old Covenant, the children of Israel could not endure even the veiled presence of God on Mount Sinai, so it would seem that looking on the unveiled glory of God's "face" would prove to be lethal for any living human.
IT guy, you may think that there is no reason to give special significance to any of these particular days that were connected to the Jewish feast celebrations. On my part, however, I see the 3 required harvest feasts clearly providing a type for the later anti-type fulfillment of 3 physical resurrection events at those specific times of the year.
I had gotten quite occupied but have some time to re-engage now.
1) What is a heavenly body?
You have said that Christ's body was heavenly because God was His Father and because of the change at resurrection. You have further said that Christ had the same body as Adam had before the fall. By implication you have said that Adam had a heavenly body.
If God's power fertilising Mary's egg made Jesus' body heavenly, why wouldn't God's power transforming dust to flesh make it a heavenly body?
2) Son of Adam
You have denied that Jesus was a son of Adam, how then could He be the last Adam?
Hi again IT guy,
A few thoughts related to the couple questions you brought up...
Would you agree that there is a distinction to be made between Adam, created as the recipient of life at his beginning, and Christ who was a giver of life in His incarnate state (as in the I Cor. 15:45 verse)? Adam had to be "jumpstarted" into a living condition from a pile of dust, but Christ in His divinity had no beginning and no end.
Granted, both Adam at creation and the incarnate Jesus both were originated by the heavenly source of God the Father, but in the case of Christ, He could also say that "I and my Father are ONE". Adam could only say that he and his fellow-created wife were ONE.
Granted, both the created Adam before the Fall and the incarnate Jesus had the same type of physical body form with a state of innocence and the option of choosing to sin, (the "heavenly body" you asked about), but only Jesus as the divine creator of all things (Heb. 1:2, Eph. 3:9) could be trusted to NEVER choose that option to sin.
(This, I believe, is one of the great underlying purposes of God creating mankind with the power to choose; to show us that any created being that is given a choice of good or evil will eventually stumble and make that choice for evil. Even in a state of innocence, we can't be trusted with that terrible power to choose, and neither could the angels, because many of them flunked the same test. Free will was the corrupting cause of our race's undoing, and should never be idolized as a desirable thing.)
With God as his heavenly Father / creator, Adam voluntarily chose to ruin that "heavenly body" he was given at creation by a single act. He was not deceived (I Tim. 2:14). His "heavenly body" then changed in that day to a decaying object - an "earthy body" - separated from the Source of Life, because God could no longer maintain an intimate relationship with someone who had become dead inside.
And a fallen Adam could only generate "sons of Adam" after his own fallen likeness, with the same death-dealing sin nature existing in them from their conception. This is why Christ could not have been titled the "Son of Adam", because that would have shown that He, too, had inherited Adam's sin nature.
Christ's identity as a human "Son of Man" (anthropou - mankind in general) sidestepped Adam as His representative "Father". Instead of being born as the seed of Adam as a male, He was generated by the power of the Spirit of God His Father using the Seed of the WOMAN, since she did not carry the baggage of representation that Adam and all his male progeny did.
Christ is the opposing counterpart of the "First Adam", who represents all of fallen mankind's race as its head, or originating source. Christ was never under Adam's representation. He is ANOTHER representative in His own right - the representative, originating "head over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:22). He is the "Second Adam" that generates life to those He represents, as opposed to the "First Adam" who, in his fallen state, generated death to those he represents.
Hopefully some of the above matches with the questions you posed, IT guy.
I don't think Jesus is ever called second Adam but he is called son of Adam in a genealogical list through his mother, which was the actual line of Jesus.
To retrace our steps so that we maintain the proper focus, I am saying reading 1 Cor 15:47 I started doubting that the focus of the verse is about the composition of the physical body. You maintain it is. So whatever discussions we have must come back to the sustainability (or otherwise) of a position that the "of the earth" or "of heaven" has to do with the physical composition of the body.
You said [Adam's] "heavenly body" then changed in that day to a decaying object - an "earthy body"
Firstly I am glad that you concede that the argument you have put across implies that Adam originally had an heavenly body. Now you are saying it changed into an earthy body at the fall but this has two problems:
1) 1 Cor 15: 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth... this is a clear allusion to the creation of Adam and it is the source of Adam i.e. the earth, that made him have an earthy body. Do you realise that by connecting the earthy body to the fall you have separated it from its source which was "the earth"?
2) 1 Cor 15:45 links the then present state of the body (corruptible etc), to the very state it was at creation. There is no hint that sin and the fall changed the state in the body which Adam had prior to the fall. ( I know there is the whole conditional state theory of Adam during a probationary time but there is no such implication from the verses in question)
So from the verses themselves Adam always had a body from the earth, an earth body. And working from that, I cannot see how the reference can be maintained as speaking to the composition of the physical body.
You maintain and rightly so, that Jesus is a new beginning for man, thus the second man. But you are yet to explain why He is the last Adam and with a particular focus on the "body"
Hi IT guy,
I've got just a bit of time away from a workroom deadline to respond to your comment.
If you doubt that I Cor. 15:47 includes a study of the physical composition of the body, then why did Paul list all sorts of physical flesh types just prior to this? (Birds, fish, beasts, terrestrial flesh of men, and celestial flesh of angels in I Cor. 15:39-41. Definitely the composition of physical bodies under consideration there.)
The order of a changing status for Adam's type of flesh goes from #1), a pile of dust to begin with - literal earth from the planet - hence, an "earthy" body formed by God's design, but still possessing no life of its own. Next #2), God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life...", thereby changing it to a "heavenly" body by having it house God's heavenly life-force given to it. As long as innocence prevailed, (in that "probationary" period established by God in Gen. 2:17), God's sustaining, intimate fellowship and presence preserved mankind's physical body in a "heavenly" status. Next #3), with the Fall, separation from God changed that "heavenly" status, and mankind became at enmity with their creator - an "earthy" creature housing a dead soul which turned that earthen form into a decaying one by its intimate association with that dead soul. This is the picture portrayed by all the OC laws prohibiting the "unclean" from coming in contact with something "clean" (as in the example of Haggai 2:10-14).
It's not possible to consider the fallen human condition without also including the effects of the spiritual upon the physical. It's rather like the toxic effects of radiation poisoning - imperceptible at first, but with inevitable, fatal consequences.
When I say the "earthy" body is connected to the Fall, I am merely saying that the human condition after the Fall in a sense reverted back to the status of being a body that (without God's life-sustaining presence) became like that original, lifeless pile of dust from the earth, with no inherent life of its own.
By association with the "First Adam", our representative, we have all borne that same fallen "earthy" image. Only those adopted out of the "First Adam's" family are given the assurance that their body forms will one day be changed to immortal ones (I Cor. 15:51 - NONE of us saints shall sleep, but we will ALL be changed...) The "Last Adam" (Christ our representative), will reverse the degrading effects of the "First Adam's" choice.
These two "Adams" were the only ones ever given a representative role over mankind as a whole. That's why Christ is called the "LAST Adam", because there will be no other representatives for mankind after Him that can reverse the physical AND spiritual effects of death that has reigned over all of us ever since that one, first offense by Adam ruined the "heavenly body" status for all mankind who descended from him. It's as Job said, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."
One of your quotes: "...Adam always had a body from the earth, an earth body." True, those original elements composing his form were still there throughout Adam's existence from the very beginning, but when acted upon by outside influences, those inert elements were affected for better or for worse - hence, the designation of "heavenly" or "earthy" in I Cor. 15:48.
Another of your quotes: "There is no hint that sin and the fall changed the state in the body which Adam had before the Fall." Can't agree there. The Romans 5:12-21 passage states emphatically that the "one offense" by one man caused death to pass upon all men - and death of the soul changes the composition of the body into a decaying one by association.
As an aside from Romans 5:14, since Adam was called "the figure of Him that was to come", (i.e., the "Last Adam"), I have reason to believe that also means Adam's chronological age at the time of the Fall was the same as Christ's was when He was crucified. In other words, Christ was about 36 1/2 years old when crucified in AD 33, and Adam lived sinlessly on the earth with Eve for a similar 36 1/2 years of time before the Fall. Just a thought.
Thanks for the thoughts Patricia
I always press for answers so that I am sure that my concerns have been addressed thus allowing me to boldly take a position.
On this verse I believe I have received from you the best answers you could give defending reference to the composition of the physical body and I can now confidently move on having settled that there is no way this portion of scripture refers to the physical body.
Like I said, its not about agreeing but about having key issues answered and from those discussion one makes up their own mind. Nevertheless it is fair for me to point out what I find to be weaknesses in your thoughts.
For me the following statement you made was the moment you surrendered the discussion forever:
True, those original elements composing his form were still there throughout Adam's existence from the very beginning, but when acted upon by outside influences, those inert elements were affected for better or for worse - hence, the designation of "heavenly" or "earthy"
This means that though the elements were the same yet the body could be an earthy or heavenly body. Which is what I was thinking all along, that it is not the elements that determine whether a body is earthy or heavenly!
Another of your quotes: "There is no hint that sin and the fall changed the state in the body which Adam had before the Fall." Can't agree there. The Romans 5:12-21 passage states emphatically...
But here I specifically said when considering only the verses in question and your reference being to Romans rather than 1 Cor 15 itself proves my point.
Christ was about 36 1/2 years old when crucified in AD 33
While I agree Christ was crucified in AD33, I believe Christ was born around 1AD and would thus have been around 33 years
Patricia, Patricia, Patricia....
You have one or two very good points and then loaded up the rest with waaay out of context and bad audience relevance and faulty timelines. You truly have blazed a strange tale. the good points do not out weight the bad. examples??? Too many places to start, so why try. You wrote a whole book and my boots are not high enough for the manure.
Oh... and Ephraim is there as one of the 'tribes'. Joseph was given The Birthright (Judah never had the Birthright, only the Kingship, until Shiloh come/came) and that Passed to Ephraim and his name was changed.... Ephraim/Israel/Joseph. Manasseh, the elder son, was given an equal portion but not the Birthright leadership. Dan was removed because the Sins of that tribe were to great and terrible.
The 144,000 redeemed come into the picture at The Judgment and the End of the Mosaic Age, which happened at AD70 and The Marriage of The Bridge/Church(AD 70) not at the time of The Cross. These 144,000 were not The Saints (from all tribes of Israel, minus Dan) coming out of the graves when the Temple vale was torn from top to bottom. Only one book says anything about the Saints coming out of the tombs and walking around. If this was such a HUGE event, then every Gospel book would have that event in there, it was for effect and symbolism, they were witnesses of Christ, whom they prophesied about. The 144,000 were already Flesh and Blood Alive (not dead in Sheol) at the time of their Redemption/Salvation/Resurrection... from The Death(AD 70). These (144,000) are from the tribes of Judah/Benjamin and the Disporia. The House of Israel (Northern), who became as Gentile, could only come back into Covenant with YHWH as a New Creation. The House of Israel (Northen) had The Birthright. The Mosaic Law forbid them from coming back under Moses, as they were divorced from YHWH and put out of The Land (Terra Firma and Spiritual Land), but were Promised Redemption. Ephraim/Jacob/Israel were reborn into the New Covenant at the Consummation of The Age. The Full Ending of Mosaic Age and The Fullness coming of The Messianic Age.
Jesus Christ could never be a High Priest under the order of Aaron, The Law forbid it. But The Law was Changed and HE became The High Priest under The Order of Melchisedec