Hey, NWL. I'm not sure I'll be able to answer all of your points, just due to time and length, but I'll try to get as much as possible
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).
As you have to try to illustrate that "man" doesn't really mean "man", I'll consider my point proven here, too. What you haven't shown is how "raised by the spirit" and "became a life-giving spirit" are exclusive of also being a man.
I'm pretty sure Paul would disagree with you about whether Christ could still be in the grave or wait for resurrection for 300 years, since he made such a big deal about the resurrection, and its necessary impact on our faith.
(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.
Well, how often did the people Paul was writing to see Jesus? It is true that we do not know Jesus according to the flesh. But it is not apparent that we now "know no man
after the flesh" as the KJV puts it (the same word translated "according to") in your translation. (Which translation is that, btw? How convenient that you found one that translated the same word in two different ways 1. "from a fleshly viewpoint", and 2. "according to the flesh".)
So you have to somehow justify how "not knowing Jesus after the flesh" means that He is not flesh, while "not knowing any man after the flesh" still applies to those in the flesh.
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?
[1Jo 3:2 KJV] Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
If it was apparent that we would have angelic bodies (whatever that looks like), Paul might have said so. "Physical fleshly bodies" is probably not accurate either. We "shall be changed", but into what is not provided.
"Spirit bodies" is oxymoronic, as far as we know, and as far as you've admitted (since you say they take on physical bodies when they need a body). A body is physical. A spirit is not. I don't know what a spirit body is. Do you?
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.
The other part of my assessment is that "death" and "hades" (and don't forget about "the sea") are emptied of their dead prior to death and hades being cast into the lake of fire.
[Rev 20:12 KJV] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
[Rev 20:13 KJV] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
If death/dying is no longer possible, what remains for those that aren't able to be with Jesus forever? How about a different kind of death? How about a death where you don't actually die? How about we call that "second death"? If the second death is the same as the first, there's little reason for it to be defined, but Rev 20 still has to define it. [Rev 20:14 KJV] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death.
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:
...
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.
I tend to agree with you here, although I admit I'm lacking in evidence to disprove the immortal soul, except if I first assume what you say "soul" means. And I'm not beyond assuming that, for the reason you give.
But that's why I stated early on in our discussion that I believe "annihilation" may occur with the first death, and it is reversed with the resurrection. What happens from that point on is where it gets interesting. If death is already defeated, and death is defined as "annihilation", then there's something else going on with "
[Rev 20:15 KJV] ...whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
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.
"Death" has already been defeated. "Death" is no more. If a person can no longer "die" (be annihilated), then what's left is eternal suffering, unending destruction, unless that person submits to the will of Jesus Christ. Common sense tells me that.
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.
What did Isaiah experience? "undone because of unclean lips and seeing God's face". What did John experience? "like a dead man". These are not just "respectful" terms. Jesus even told John NOT to respect Him, if that's what it means.
Myself? I don't know. We don't recognize the idea of "fall on my face in fear" in our culture, but I tend to think it would be something like that.
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?
"Being raised as a spirit in bodily form"?????
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. .
What you're really saying here is that there is nothing that will convince you that your interpretation is incorrect. That's a sad condition to be in, my friend, as you aren't open to correction in this area. But as long as that's the case, I guess it is pointless to discuss this particular point with you.
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.
The question Jesus was answering was how marriage fits into the resurrection. And His answer was that marriage fits with the resurrected the same way marriage fits with angels--it doesn't. That doesn't mean we become angels in all ways.
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?
"It" is the word you are overlooking. "It" is sown" and "it" is raised. "It" is still "it". There is a change, for sure, but "it" existed before death ("sowing") and "it" exists after resurrection ("raising"). The body, "it", is still involved after the resurrection. So the same body can be a physical body before death and a spiritual body after resurrection. The same body.
One more verse:
[Rom 8:11 KJV] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Mortality isn't replaced by immortality, but the mortal must put on immortality.
[1Co 15:53 KJV] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.
