You seem to make a distinction between a "man" and a "spirit person". This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man:
[Rom 5:17 ESV] For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[1Ti 2:5 ESV] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Neither of the foregoing verses give any other option than that Jesus is still a man.
Notice what you just said,
"Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man", now notice what scripture says
"[Jesus] was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). Your statement is almost identical with 1 Peter 3:18 the only difference being 1 Peter 3:18 communicates Jesus was raised as a "spirit" whereas you say he was raised "as a man", what you say goes contrary to scripture. The same can be said with your complete statement
"This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man" and 1 Cor 15:45,
"So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.". What you claim and what you say goes contrary to what the scripture
literally says, I cannot fathom how you overlook this.
You bring out Romans 5:17 that mentions death reigned because of one man, namely Adam, and that it's through one man, Jesus, that we get life through. Nothing in the verse implies Jesus is still a man, it simply implies the fact that Jesus
the man was the person who gave his life and thus it is through him
a man that we live. For instance, imagine that Jesus was
NEVER resurrected but remained dead or was to be resurrected 300 years after his death instead of 3 days, his sacrifice would
still redeem mankind, the very same statement could still be said,
"because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ", the scripture is referring to the ransom of Jesus as a man and
isn't implying Jesus still lives as a man, such an idea is read into scripture.
As I've said in regards to 1 Tim 2:5 before
"The word ANTHRWPOS does not necessarily mean “man” but is a generic term for “individual” or “person” (cf. Moulton’s Lexicon). It can even refer to women! Angels are many times referred to as “men” (Lk.24:4 Ac.10:30; Ge 32:24). Any reference to the heavenly Jesus as a "man" must be an anthropological expression and not a man literally ( Acts 17:31).". Another example of this is that God is called "he" yet is neither male nor female since being male or female relates to gender distinction of the physical Gods physical creation, it would be folly for someone to claim God is a male and not a female as the bible mentions him as a "he", God is genderless.
When we read the verse however it should be clear that Jesus was acting as a mediator
when on earth and was being spoken about in the past tense, this is clear by the context,
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5,6). Jesus, as the greater Moses (Heb 3:3), acted as a meditator when on earth the same way Moses acted as a meditator when on earth
"[the Law] it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator" (Gal 3:19).
Again, you make a great distinction between being a man in the flesh and being a spirit. You seem to recognize, rightly, that Jesus was NOT a man before He took on flesh. But we are assured that Jesus remains a man after He died. Thus, He is NOT without a body. His disciples saw Him in His bodily form, after His resurrection, rising up to heaven. It wasn't just a spirit that was rising up to heaven, just as it wasn't just a spirit Elisha saw rising up to heaven when Elijah went up. There wasn't a separation of spirit from body for Elijah anymore than there was for Jesus. Neither will we, if we remain alive until His coming, be just spirits rising up to heaven:
[1Th 4:17 KJV] Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Because, as you conveniently left out below:
[1Co 15:51 KJV] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(2 Corinthians 5:16) So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.
Jesus
has a body, it's simply a spirit body. Again, if angels were able to materialize temporary physical body then there is no reason why Jesus, if a spirit, was not able to do the same and appear to many people as he did. Again, I cannot fathom how you can take
"we certainly no longer know him [Jesus according to the flesh] in that way" to mean anything other than it expressing Jesus is no longer in body of flesh.
2 Corinthians 5:1 talks about a house or tent, referring to the body of a man, notice what it states,
"For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens", notice how Paul speak about a house/body that is not physically made ("made with hands") this is only possible if ones who go to heaven, like Jesus, are in non-physical bodies. God, Jesus and the Angels prior to coming to earth were all spiritual beings, none of them were tangible, it's very weird to me that people have this idea that physical beings can enter into a non-physical realm, when scripture states
"flesh and blood" cannot enter into heaven, it's so very clear to me that such a thing was only said as Paul was trying to make clear that only non-physical things are in heaven.
Do you believe people who are resurrected to heaven will have spirit bodies like the angels or physical fleshly bodies?
You are then admitting that "Death" is NOT swallowed up in victory, nor is "Death" thrown into the Lake of Fire, by which it can never have power over anyone again. Nor is the last enemy to be defeated "Death", since "Death" will then be a permanent victor:
[1Co 15:26 KJV] The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?
We must remember the Bible uses anthropomorphic language, especially when we're talking about the first and second death, death simply refers to the non-existence of something that was in existence. I believe I
now understand why you said what you said above, please correct me if I'm wrong, you understand such passages of
"The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" to mean that no one who is dead will remain dead since death itself will be destroyed. I differ on opinion with this, when 1 Cor 15:26 states
"The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" I understand this to be the same thing as described in Rev 20:14 when it states
"And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire", in Rev 20:14 death is hurled into the lake of fire which to me means eternal destruction this is where 1 Cor 15:26 is fulfilled, I hope we agree on this, but let me continue and explain further. This is why Rev 21:3,4, when speaking about the new heaven and new earth, states
"[God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more", when it mentions of death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" I
do not take this to mean all those are dead '
have' to be alive by what is said,
but rather, those who are alive will never be subjected to death again, that is what death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" means. You need to remember "death" is never actually destroyed, God doesn't get death like its some type of entity or tangible object and destroy it, the scriptures are simply expressing that 'no one will die again', it's in that sense that 'death is destroyed', the bible is using anthropomorphic language to explain things on simple terms. Nothing in 1 Cor 15:26 expresses that ones who are subjected to eternal death have to stay dead since the "death being destroyed" is in relation to people not dying
'anymore' in the future.
You asked
"If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?", I believe my answer above should suffice but if it's not I would answer that death isn't literally destroyed by death since death isn't a real literal entity or thing, its simply an expression that something that did exist no longer exists, the bible using anthropomorphic language to explain that ones who are faithful to God will never be subjected to death again, expressing this by stating
"death will be destroyed by being thrown into the lake of fire which means the second death", with the second death meaning eternal judgment and destruction.
I'm still thinking through what the first death actually is, but my proposition is that it is a state of unconsciousness, as you seem to think, too. What is that unconsciousness like? Well, the body decays and goes away, so the unconsciousness doesn't apply to the body, which no longer exists (and in fact, our bodies may contain molecules of other people's bodies). What's left? An unconscious soul or spirit? I guess that's possible, but does God have some storage place for unconscious spirits? Rev mentions something like this: [Rev 6:9 KJV] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:...[Rev 6:11 KJV] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate by saying this but I disagree with the idea that there is a place that exists for the soul/spirits of the dead. The term soul is simply an expression for a man, an individual. The teaching that man has a soul or the immortality of the soul is nowhere found in scripture, this is known by most if not all scholars, please note what these scholars (scholarly material) say about the bible usage of the word soul:
“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [neʹphesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·kheʹ] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.
"Indeed, the salvation of the 'immortal soul' has sometimes been a commonplace in preaching, but it is fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss.", Myers (ed.), "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary", p. 518 (1987).
“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.
When scripture such as 1 Peter 3:20 state in regards to souls
"while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water" the usage of soul is simply expressing eight
'persons' were carried. When Gen 2:7 states "
And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul" Adam becoming a living soul simply means he was a
'person/human'. There is nothing in the bible that suggest man has a soul that is separate from his body or survives death. When Rev 6: 9 states
"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given" it's not expressing man has a soul that lives in a person, but rather simply refers to resurrected faithful
'individuals' of Jesus. The original-language for “soul” in Hebrew (ne´phesh) and Greek (psy·khe´), both ne´phesh and psykhe´ are
ALSO used to mean the 'life as a creature', human or animal. Because servants of God have the hope of a resurrection in the event of death, they have the hope of living again as “souls,” or living creatures. That is why Jesus said that
“whoever loses his soul [his life as a creature] for the sake of me and the good news will save it. Really, of what benefit is it for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul? What, really, would a man give in exchange for his soul?”. So the soul either refers to a person or the life of a living person.
Most of Christianity teach an immortal soul separate from the body but this is not found in the bible, if you Wikipedia "soul" and then Wikipedia "Soul in the bible" you will see a stark difference with what Christianity teaches about the soul and what the bible mentions of the soul.
For one thing, I don't believe the bible ever puts the word "everlasting" with "death", despite the numerous associations between "everlasting" and "life". "Destruction", yes, but not "death". As explained before, the second death is not described in the same terms as the first death, as the first death is never termed a "lake of fire" or any other kind of "fire", is it?
And if death is the penalty for sin, then can God be just when people have to die 2 deaths? There must be something else going on after the first death is reversed: Christ can claim victory for the resurrection, even if unto judgment. Beyond that, the problem is what to do with people who have died once and even after the resurrection are not willing to follow the commands of God in God's Kingdom. What punishment remains when the stated punishment is already been fulfilled, but God's will is still not being done on earth as it is in heaven, at least as it relates to those people?
Kings on earth have a similar problem. There are only three potential solutions for someone who won't obey. Imprisonment, Banishment, and Death. The Death option no longer exists, so you have imprisonment and banishment. Banishment, for a King has all authority in heaven and earth and under the earth, is an impossibility--there's nowhere to send them. Imprisonment is all that's left, I think. And imprisonment in a place that doesn't receive any of the good things God gives to His people, those of His kingdom. If God is the source of all good, and these people are refusing any good from God, the only thing left is evil for them. They get what they choose.
You are correct, the bible never does put the word "everlasting" with "death", but common sense must also be used, if one receives the punishment of "eternal destruction" then destruction can only mean one thing if no other modifiers are in use, namely death.
(2 Thessalonians 1:9) These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength", the everlasting destruction can only refer to death, and the death -if everlasting- has to be everlasting to be described that way or else scripture contradicts itself.
You said "
And if death is the penalty for sin, then can God be just when people have to die 2 deaths? There must be something else going on after the first death is reversed". I did allude to this earlier and gave my stance on the matter, Rev 21 states there will be a
"resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous", the righteous ones will have a resurrection of life whereas the unrighteous will have a resurrection of judgment. It is my believe the unrighteous ones will be resurrected again where the earth is filled with the knowledge of God, they will be given another chance, based on their actions they will be judged according to their deeds, if judged unrighteous by their newly resurrected deeds they will be forever cast into the lake of fire meaning they are eternally dead.
(Rev20:12-14) 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.
I don't think you've proved anything here. You're welcome to try again.
If God appeared to you would you have fear in the sense of horror or fear in the sense of respect (God-fearing)?
The original language word used in regards to the shepherd is in relation to that of godly fear, the word used for fear with the apostles was one relating to shock and horror, that's the point I was making.
How about if car maker were to replicate Elvis's car in every detail, and show it to people as if it were the car the Elvis drove? Pick something else. How about we replicate in every detail one of Michelangelo's paintings or sculptures, and say "this is the very painting/sculpture created by Michelangelo"? What would you say about that? Would you think you had been lied to?
In what sense is it a lie if Jesus rose
as a spirit, recreated a body temporarily, and claimed he was Jesus when he was Jesus? Are you trying to say to you that if Jesus appeared in front of you right now
in a flesh form and claimed he did in fact rise as a spirit but only temporarily made a body to his apostles as he was to you now, you would feel like Jesus was somehow lying?
Did the person of Jesus stop being the person who he went from spirit to flesh when coming to earth? If your answer is no then why is it somehow deceitful for Jesus to claim he was Jesus if being raised as a spirit in a bodily form?
Well, if all you're looking at is the impression, then there is indeed an invisible ring--you don't see it, so it's invisible. (The method of becoming invisible is not under discussion.) But if Jesus is still "the man Jesus Christ", then He is NOT God who is only spirit. Now, Jesus might be invisible at this time, but that's because when He went up into heaven, the disciples lost sight of Him. It doesn't mean He became a body-less spirit.
You saying
"Well, if all you're looking at is the impression, then there is indeed an invisible ring--you don't see it, so it's invisible" is a very poor argument, in my opinion. I have a signet ring at home, are you trying to say that if I push the print into hot wax, throw the ring out the window so I can't see it that the ring itself is invisible? No, the ring is still visible it's simply not in my line of vision. Nobody would say a coffin buried under the ground is invisible, or the sun when its sets is invisible as we can't see it. Language only defines things as "invisible" that are
inherently invisible, and not to things that are simply not visible to the observer. I understand why you're using this argument as you need to somehow detangle the fact that Jesus is called "invisible", so result in claiming he's invisible in the sense we can't currently see him, I think you need to be honest with yourself as its clear invisible means invisible.
Strongs 517 - aoratō
Usage: unseen, invisible.
517 aóratos (from 1 /A "not" and 3708 /horáō, "see") – properly, not seen; invisible to the physical ("naked") eye
You're getting the word "invisible" and claiming its speaking from a relative point of view of the writer. Things that are invisible are not relative in nature, they are objective or inherently true. Going off your understanding of "invisible" everything outside the room I'm sitting in is invisible as I can't see it, no one speaks or writes this way but of course, you're attempting to claim such an understanding "invisible" as the normal definition of invisible contradicts your belief. To show to you once and for all that when scripture states Jesus was "invisible" it meant what it clearly stated all I ask is that you read the following,
1 Timothy 6:16 "[Jesus] the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen." Notice, Timothy, speaking of the risen Jesus states,
"whom no man has seen or can see", you claim Jesus was raised in the flesh and was seen in his body by hundreds, yet scripture states
"no man has seen" Jesus. The reason why
"no man has seen or can see" Jesus is because Jesus is a spirit and spirits are invisible in nature, when Jesus appeared to the apostles he appeared in bodies that were not his, that were not him, the bodies were only temporary, thus no man has seen the risen Jesus in his spirit body or can see him, as he is an invisible spirit.
There can be nothing said that will change the meaning of Jesus being
"the exact representation of [Gods] very being", Jesus is whatever the Father is, if the Father is an invisible spirit then Jesus is too, nothing you've shown has shown this to be untrue at present. .
Not really. If Jesus existed prior to coming to earth as a man, and then He went back to being the same as He was before--not a man--how can we be brothers of His, fellow-heirs, without losing our manhood. You're treading on some shaky ground here.
That's exactly what we lose when we become heirs, our manhood. Those who go to heaven are changed, just as Jesus was into a spirit, like angels are spirits.
"But in the future world no one who is worthy to rise from death will either marry or die. They will be like the angels and will be God's children, because they have been raised to life. (Luke 20:36 CEV), and also "
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt 22:30). Resurrected ones will be spirits as Angels are spirits, they then become Christ brothers.
Or with a body that will last forever, possibly like those in the lake of fire???
The point of Paul's passage is that the body is changed--I don't deny that--but that it is still a body. He's dealing with the body both before and after: "with what sort of body are they coming?"
A spirit body is still a body, how is it possible that mankind as "flesh and blood" will go to heaven when the verse states flesh and blood cannot enter into heaven? What else other than a spirit body can be in a spiritual place?
Why does Paul state
"it is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body" in relation to earthly man compared to when he goes to heaven, how can being "
raised up a spiritual body" simply not mean what it clearly states, that such ones a raised up in a spiritual body and not a physical body?
I saw no reasoning againist my position with Acts 13:34 compared to 1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50 where is states "And the fact that He [God] resurrected
him [Jesus] from the dead never again to return to corruption". The verse states Jesus was to never return to corruption again, Paul makes it clear that when he talks about corruption he's talking about a human body (read 1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50), so how do you rectify that Jesus was never to return to corruption when you claim he did?
I'll consider my point proven.
Are you sure this isn't a sneaky way of getting out of answering my question.
My question was would the sacrifice be valid if the person offering the sacrifice kept it for themselves by taking back the meat and the blood? Would the sacrifice be valid?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Jesus was raised in the same body but was unrecognizable from his facial injuries when he appeared to them when they were fishing then why was he recognized by the apostles the day he was raised? John 20:16 and Luke 24:21:
(John 20:16) Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rab·boʹni!” (which means “Teacher!”)
(Luke 24:31) At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; but he disappeared from them.