Theology Club: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul is specific about this--the very body that was buried ("sown") in death is raised. That body is the "it" that is bolded numerous times in the passage above. There's nothing else available for an antecedent. It is raised better than it was before, but it is still raised. It is raised "imperishable", meaning it is meant to last forever. Thus, when Jesus Christ was raised, never to die again, it was His flesh that was raised, not His Spirit.

The key to understanding the verses which you quoted is found earlier:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain" (1 Cor.15:36-37).​

Here Paul compares the natural body to a "seed." What is sowed or planted is the seed, the natural body. And until the seed dies and is rotted in the ground it does not produce anything. But once it dies then it brings forth the "body which shall be."

After the physical body is destroyed something springs out of it and it is widely different from the original body (seed) and the form is completely different. It is ridiculous to argue that the splendor of a beautiful flower is in the same form and splendor as the "seed" from whence it came.

With that in mind let us look at these verses:

"It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).​

The natural body is compared to a "seed" and that seed is planted in corruptible form and then it dies in the ground. What grows out of that seed is completely different from the seed because it grows into something that is not corruptible. When the natural body dies in the ground then what springs from it is completely different from a natural body and it becomes a "spiritual" body.

Despite all of this you say;

Paul is specific about this--the very body that was buried ("sown") in death is raised.

So we are supposed to believe that when the seed (the natural body) dies then what springs from that seed is just another seed?

No, the Apostle Paul uses an adjective to describe the body in which we will be raised and he describes our future body as a "spiritual" body. And as I said, the Greek word translated "spiritual" means: "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of new Testament Words).

So we can understand that when Paul used that adjective to refer to our future bodies (being a "spiritual" body) he was referring to a body which is invisible to us in our natural bodies.

Now to clear up something. The Lord was raised in an earthly body. The saints who will be raised from the dead in the last day will also be raised in earthly bodies. The body in which one is raised will be suitable for the environment in which that person will exist. After all, it would make no sense for us to be raised in an "earthly" body if our destination is heaven, would it? And it would make no sense to argue that the Lord Jesus is now in heaven in an "earthly" body instead of a "heavenly" one.

I say that all will be raised in a glorious body, one which is adaptable to the environment in which it will exist. When we return to the earth with the Lord Jesus our bodies will adapt to an earthly environment. When we return to the heavenly kingdom our bodies will be adapted to that environment. Why should we imagine that our glorious bodies are not capable of such a thing.

It seems that the flesh and blood body in which the Lord Jesus was raised on the earth had some supernatural qualities which our unresurrected bodies do not possess.

 

[Derf]

The key to understanding the verses which you quoted is found earlier:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain" (1 Cor.15:36-37).​

Here Paul compares the natural body to a "seed." What is sowed or planted is the seed, the natural body. And until the seed dies and is rotted in the ground it does not produce anything. But once it dies then it brings forth the "body which shall be."

After the physical body is destroyed something springs out of it and it is widely different from the original body (seed) and the form is completely different. It is ridiculous to argue that the splendor of a beautiful flower is in the same form and splendor as the "seed" from whence it came.

The analogy was of a grain, of wheat perhaps. What springs out of a wheat grain is still wheat. It is still physical, and it matures to contain more grains of wheat, which will then die and decay to produce more wheat. How far do we need to take the analogy before we agree that it no longer applies.

But at least we should be able to see that when Paul says: "But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body." He's not saying that He gives an angel "body" to a human, or a plant body to human, or a celestial body to a human. To each kind of seed he gives its OWN body. We understand that a seed of wheat reproduces after its kind. And the animals God made all reproduce after their kind. And man reproduces after his kind. But in comparison to the growing plant--green and big and beautiful--the seed is drab and small and unimpressive--and meant to die. So will be the difference between the natural body and the spiritual body, only more. But it's still a spiritual BODY.

With that in mind let us look at these verses:

"It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).​

The natural body is compared to a "seed" and that seed is planted in corruptible form and then it dies in the ground. What grows out of that seed is completely different from the seed because it grows into something that is not corruptible. When the natural body dies in the ground then what springs from it is completely different from a natural body and it becomes a "spiritual" body.

Despite all of this you say;



So we are supposed to believe that when the seed (the natural body) dies then what springs from that seed is just another seed?

Nope, never said that.

No, the Apostle Paul uses an adjective to describe the body in which we will be raised and he describes our future body as a "spiritual" body. And as I said, the Greek word translated "spiritual" means: "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of new Testament Words).

So we can understand that when Paul used that adjective to refer to our future bodies (being a "spiritual" body) he was referring to a body which is invisible to us in our natural bodies.

We have at least 2 pieces of evidence that refute that idea. The first is Job (in Job 19:26-27, as explained earlier), and the second is Jesus (as explained earlier). You talk about Jesus' resurrection next, so let's go to that.

Now to clear up something. The Lord was raised in an earthly body. The saints who will be raised from the dead in the last day will also be raised in earthly bodies. The body in which one is raised will be suitable for the environment in which that person will exist. After all, it would make no sense for us to be raised in an "earthly" body if our destination is heaven, would it? And it would make no sense to argue that the Lord Jesus is now in heaven in an "earthly" body instead of a "heavenly" one.

I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you. But that doesn't make it untrue. If Jesus went to heaven in an earthly body (and He apparently did, unless the disciples were merely seeing an illusion), and we have no indications that He shed that earthly body after that, then it "makes sense" that He is in heaven with His earthly body. Please don't enforce your systematic onto sensibility.

I say that all will be raised in a glorious body, one which is adaptable to the environment in which it will exist. When we return to the earth with the Lord Jesus our bodies will adapt to an earthly environment. When we return to the heavenly kingdom our bodies will be adapted to that environment. Why should we imagine that our glorious bodies are not capable of such a thing.

It seems that the flesh and blood body in which the Lord Jesus was raised on the earth had some supernatural qualities which our unresurrected bodies do not possess.

This makes a lot of sense! And it is antithetical to what you were saying earlier, that we would need a different body from what we have in heaven to return to the new earth. So thank you for bending a bit.

Just so you understand, I don't think I have indicated anywhere what our future, spiritual bodies will or will not be capable of, except sin and corruption (not capable, or at least not willing). I'm not knowledgeable enough about the heavenly realm to come to very many conclusions about it.

But we do have some indications of what that body might be like.

• we will have eyes and be capable of seeing Jesus. So, if he is invisible to us right now, He will not always be invisible to us (either from a change in proximity or a change in our eyesight or something else).
• We will have legs, as Jesus did, and as Job will need to "stand" on the earth
• we might be able to walk through walls, or at least the type of physical walls we have here on earth (as Jesus did).
• we might be able to ascend to heaven, as Jesus did.
• we might be able to travel all about the heavens (if Jesus went "up" to heaven, and if heaven is really above our sky, then we, too, might be able to make that kind of journey).

There are some others, no doubt, that we can glean from scripture, but you get the idea.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Greetings Derf,

Earlier I said:

No, the Apostle Paul uses an adjective to describe the body in which we will be raised and he describes our future body as a "spiritual" body. And as I said, the Greek word translated "spiritual" means: "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of new Testament Words).

So we can understand that when Paul used that adjective to refer to our future bodies (being a "spiritual" body) he was referring to a body which is invisible to us in our natural bodies.

To this you say:

We have at least 2 pieces of evidence that refute that idea. The first is Job (in Job 19:26-27, as explained earlier), and the second is Jesus (as explained earlier). You talk about Jesus' resurrection next, so let's go to that.

Nothing you said there addresses why Paul used the adjective "spiritual" to describe the body which we will wear when we will be raised from the dead. The Greek word translated "spiritual" means "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

So if you want to refute my point about Paul using an adjective to describe our future body as being "invisible" then you will either have to prove that Paul was in error or that the Greek expert who I quoted is in error.

Have at it!

 

[themuzicman]

So even though the present earth and the present heaven will melt and be burned up and perish you say that all those things will be restored to their state when they were first created:

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved...Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet.3:10-11, 13).​

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest" (Heb.1:10-11).​

Does what is said here match the original creation?:

"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there" (Rev.21:23-25).​

Just because there is no need doesn't mean they won't be there.

You have a vivid imagination but you seem unable to think outside the box.

When it comes to Scripture, we should stay in the box. No need to make things up to replace it.

Beginning at 1 Corinthians 15:42 until verse 50 the subject is about the different types of bodies which Christians will be clothed upon. So if you are right then we must believe that our earthly bodies have a sinful nature.

Is that your argument? That sins are imputed to our bodies?

Technically, the problem we have is that we have the knowledge of good and evil, and we were under the law. We can see this clearly in Romans 7:1-9. The flesh isn't sinful, but our flesh responds poorly to being under law and judgment, which is why we sin. This is why we are in need of sanctification, the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:1-2).

Thus, the "spiritual body" isn't speaking of a body that isn't physical (that's gnosticism, and a denial of Jesus' resurrection), but rather a body that is free from law and judgment, that is morally pure and incorruptible. This is why the "flesh and blood", the sinful aspects of our current nature, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. These things are purged from us, so that we can enter the kingdom with the bodies we already have.

So, again, you continue in the Gnostic heresy.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When it comes to Scripture, we should stay in the box. No need to make things up to replace it.

Like you did when you assert that Paul "commanded" the Gentiles to eternal life and everyone of them so commanded believe the gospel? LOL!

Thus, the "spiritual body" isn't speaking of a body that isn't physical (that's gnosticism, and a denial of Jesus' resurrection), but rather a body that is free from law and judgment, that is morally pure and incorruptible

You are hilarious! According to you the "body" of which you speak is "morally pure"!

Do you under the illusion that the bodies we wear today are not "morally pure"? Can our bodies actually be moral or immoral?

What a bunch of Gnostic nonsense!

 

[Derf]

Greetings Derf,

Earlier I said:

No, the Apostle Paul uses an adjective to describe the body in which we will be raised and he describes our future body as a "spiritual" body. And as I said, the Greek word translated "spiritual" means: "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of new Testament Words).

So we can understand that when Paul used that adjective to refer to our future bodies (being a "spiritual" body) he was referring to a body which is invisible to us in our natural bodies.

To this you say:



Nothing you said there addresses why Paul used the adjective "spiritual" to describe the body which we will wear when we will be raised from the dead. The Greek word translated "spiritual" means "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

So if you want to refute my point about Paul using an adjective to describe our future body as being "invisible" then you will either have to prove that Paul was in error or that the Greek expert who I quoted is in error.

Have at it!

You failed to allow for the option that "Jerry Shugart is in error." This is a particularly gross character flaw that you need to work on. In other words, you've interpreted both Paul and Vine's to say something they don't say, and then present them as the authority for your opinion.

I'll let Vine's do my talking for me. From the entry on "spiritual" (my bolding and highlighting):

Spoiler

Spiritual:
"always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power. It does not occur in the Sept. nor in the Gospels; it is in fact an after-Pentecost word. In the NT it is used as follows:
(a) the angelic hosts, lower than God but higher in the scale of being than man in his natural state, are 'spiritual hosts,' Eph 6:12;
(b) things that have their origin with God, and which, therefore, are in harmony with His character, as His law is, are 'spiritual,' Rom 7:14;
(c) 'spiritual' is prefixed to the material type in order to indicate that what the type sets forth, not the type itself, is intended, 1Cor 10:3, 4;
(d) the purposes of God revealed in the gospel by the Holy Spirit, 1Cor 2:13, and the words in which that revelation is expressed, are 'spiritual,' 1Cor 2:13, matching, or combining, spiritual things with spiritual words [or, alternatively, 'interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men,' see (e) below]; 'spiritual songs' are songs of which the burden is the things revealed by the Spirit, Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; 'spiritual wisdom and understanding' is wisdom in, and understanding of, those things, Col 1:9;
(e) men in Christ who walk so as to please God are 'spiritual,' Gal 6:1; 1Cor 2:13 [but see (d) above], 1Cor 2:15; 3:1; 14:37;
(f) the whole company of those who believe in Christ is a 'spiritual house,' 1Pe 2:5;
(g) the blessings that accrue to regenerate men at this present time are called 'spiritualities,' Rom 15:27; 1Cor 9:11; 'spiritual blessings,' Eph 1:3; 'spiritual gifts,' Rom 1:11;
(h) the activities Godward of regenerate men are 'spiritual sacrifices,' 1Pe 2:5; their appointed activities in the churches are also called 'spiritual gifts,' lit., 'spiritualities,' 1Cor 12:1; 14:1;
(i) the resurrection body of the dead in Christ is 'spiritual,' i.e., such as is suited to the heavenly environment, 1Cor 15:44;
(j) all that is produced and maintained among men by the operations of the Spirit of God is 'spiritual,' 1Cor 15:46....
"The spiritual man is one who walks by the Spirit both in the sense of Gal 5:16 and in that of Gal 5:25, and who himself manifests the fruit of the Spirit in his own ways...."

A greater portion of the foregoing uses are for things that are or can be experienced by believers on this earth. Yes, they are invisible, like all character traits are invisible, but that isn't the main emphasis--the main emphasis appears to be that they are from God. God's law is spiritual, meaning it came from God and it shows His character. Spiritual songs are songs that encourage us to follow God's ways and partake in His activities. "Spiritual sacrifices" are Godward activities. "j" talks about everything that is done among men by the Spirit--men that we can see and touch--and the reference is from the very chapter you are using to try to prove your point. The quote at the bottom describes the spiritual MAN! And you can see that it doesn't say that the spiritual man is invisible, else there would be no witness by the spiritual man to those that need that witness.

Finally, let's look at "i". It is talking about the very verse that you are referring to, 1 Co 15:44. I highlighted it for you. Can you show me the word "invisible" there? No, because that wasn't the focus of the word "spiritual" in that verse, according to your source of reference. Will it be invisible to us? Well, 1Jn 3:2 suggests that when Jesus appears, we will find out what we will be like, because "it does not yet appear what we shall be", but at that time it will appear what we shall be.

What does it mean to "appear"?

ap·pear [əˈpir/]verb 1.come into sight; become visible or noticeable, typically without visible agent or apparent cause. synonyms: become visible, come into view, come into sight, materialize, pop up More

Jerry, I'm not trying to say that Jesus is currently visible--He's not, at least to me. I can't see Him. But that doesn't mean He is an invisible entity with no body, that none can see Him, even those that fall down at His feet in heaven to worship Him. As a King, He reigns on this earth in my heart and mind, but he's invisible to me at this time. The other things we can know about His present state is that He was fully visible when He left (though only select persons saw Him after His resurrection), that He was visible as He was leaving, that His resurrected body would not die again (as if it were cast off), since He defeated death, and that we will see Him again, along with Job, with our eyes, when we stand in our flesh on the earth after our resurrection.

You, also, are invisible to me. I can't see you. nor you, me. But as a spiritual man (at least I hope you are or desire to be a spiritual man), your wife and kids can still see you.

[btw, I saw that your son started a TOL account, but I hope I'm not presuming something that is hurtful--I hope your wife is alive and well, but if not, please forgive me.]

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'll let Vine's do my talking for me. From the entry on "spiritual" (my bolding and highlighting):

Your problem is that you ignore one of the meanings which is given there, that the Greek word translated spiritual "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of new Testament Words).

Your ideas directly contradict that. What are your credentials in understanding the things in regard to the Greek language?

The quote at the bottom describes the spiritual MAN! And you can see that it doesn't say that the spiritual man is invisible, else there would be no witness by the spiritual man to those that need that witness.

You confuse the body with the man. Of course it is the "inner man" (who is invisible) who is a spiritual man. For some reason the idea that the body which we are now in are described as being clothed upon escapes you. Perhaps you are willing to argue that we can see with our eyes the inner man?

Well, 1Jn 3:2 suggests that when Jesus appears, we will find out what we will be like, because "it does not yet appear what we shall be", but at that time it will appear what we shall be.

Of course He will "appear" to the believers when they are changed into a spiritual body just like His spiritual body. Besides that, if the Lord Jesus will appear in the same body in which they saw Him after He was raised from the dead then they would know EXACTLY what they will be. But what is said here proves that is not true:

"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" (1 Jn.3:2).​

Again, if the Lord Jesus is now in a flesh and blood body like the one which the Apostles saw after He was raised from the dead then they would no EXACTLY what He will be like and what they will be like.

Jerry, I'm not trying to say that Jesus is currently visible--He's not, at least to me. I can't see Him. But that doesn't mean He is an invisible entity with no body, that none can see Him, even those that fall down at His feet in heaven to worship Him.

Who says that He has no body? I have always said that when the living saints will meet the Lord Jesus in the air then they will take on a body just like His glorious body. Your mind is so closed on this subject that you cannot even understand the things which those who disagree with you say.

And of course those in heaven will be able to see Him because by that time they will also have spiritual bodies like the Lord Jesus' spiritual body. In fact they will be able to see God who is spirit (Rev.22:3-4).

Do you think that we can see God with the eyes which are a part of our natural bodies?

You, also, are invisible to me. I can't see you. nor you, me.

When Paul uses the pronoun "spiritual" to describe our future bodies He is describing the very essence of that body. And again, the Greek word translated 'spiritual' "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power."

We can also see that here Paul uses another adjective to describe the Lord Jesus as he is now in heaven and "invisible":

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (1 Tim.1:17).​

The pronoun is describing the very essence of the Lord Jesus, just like when the following pronoun is used to describe God:

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Col.1:14-15).​

 

[themuzicman]

Like you did when you assert that Paul "commanded" the Gentiles to eternal life and everyone of them so commanded believe the gospel? LOL!



You are hilarious! According to you the "body" of which you speak is "morally pure"!

Do you under the illusion that the bodies we wear today are not "morally pure"? Can our bodies actually be moral or immoral?

What a bunch of Gnostic nonsense!

It would seem that when you have no answer, you resort to this. So, this will suffice as your concession.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It would seem that when you have no answer, you resort to this. So, this will suffice as your concession.

Were you actually serious when you said this?:

Thus, the "spiritual body" isn't speaking of a body that isn't physical (that's gnosticism, and a denial of Jesus' resurrection), but rather a body that is free from law and judgment, that is morally pure and incorruptible

Why would you even say anything about a body being "morally pure" since morals relate to to principles of right and wrong in a person's behavior. It is the "inner man" who makes the choices in regard to behavior, not his body.

 

[themuzicman]

Were you actually serious when you said this?:



Why would you even say anything about a body being "morally pure" since morals relate to to principles of right and wrong in a person's behavior. It is the "inner man" who makes the choices in regard to behavior, not his body.

This only further exposes your Gnostic leanings. The entire context, while speaking about how physical resurrection is necessary for our faith to not be in vain, Paul is referring to the person.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This only further exposes your Gnostic leanings. The entire context, while speaking about how physical resurrection is necessary for our faith to not be in vain, Paul is referring to the person.

By your own words Paul is referring to a "body" and not a "person":

Thus, the "spiritual body" isn't speaking of a body that isn't physical (that's gnosticism, and a denial of Jesus' resurrection), but rather a body that is free from law and judgment, that is morally pure and incorruptible

Why would you even say anything about a body being "morally pure" since morals relate to to principles of right and wrong in a person's behavior? It is the "inner man" who makes the choices in regard to behavior, not his body.

 

[themuzicman]

By your own words Paul is referring to a "body" and not a "person":



Why would you even say anything about a body being "morally pure" since morals relate to to principles of right and wrong in a person's behavior? It is the "inner man" who makes the choices in regard to behavior, not his body.

I can see that gnosticism is important to you. Still, Scripture answers the question for us:

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[e] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Note that the "natural body" is "perishable", having "dishonor" and "weakness."
Note that the "spiritual body" is "imperishable", having "glory" and "power."

Why are our bodies perishable? Why do we have "dishonor" and "weakness"? Because of sin. Adam had access to eternal life until he was cut off from the garden in Genesis 3, and punished with physical death. Adam had honor and power until he sinned, and because dishonorable and weak.

So, our resurrection will be a restoration of what was lost when Adam sinned.

Also take notice of verse 49. We bear the image of the man of dust, and we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. So, we do not lose our bodies as created. They are restored, even as we bear the image of Christ, who remains in the body he was resurrected in and was shown to Thomas.

So, you really need to start aligning with Scripture on this, because, as Paul states, if you get this wrong, your faith is in vain.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why are our bodies perishable? Why do we have "dishonor" and "weakness"?

Because they are made that way. In order for our bodies to live forever it was necessary to partake of the Tree of Life. But once denied the access to that tree the physical body is now subject to death:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen.3:22-24).​

 

[themuzicman]

Because they are made that way. In order for our bodies to live forever it was necessary to partake of the Tree of Life. But once denied the access to that tree the physical body is now subject to death:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen.3:22-24).​

So, you're saying that "perishable", "dishonor", and "weak" is "very good" in terms of creation?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, you're saying that "perishable", "dishonor", and "weak" is "very good" in terms of creation?

Not all all! Instead, the verses to which you refer speak of "sowing" the natural body as a seed. The key to understanding the verses which you cited is found earlier:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain" (1 Cor.15:36-37).​

Here Paul compares the natural body to a "seed." What is sowed or planted is the seed, the natural body. And until the seed dies and is rotted in the ground it does not produce anything. But once it dies then it brings forth the "body which shall be."

After the physical body is destroyed something springs out of it and it is widely different from the original body (seed) and the form is completely different. Therefore, we can understand that the words "dishonor," and "weakness" are speaking about the natural body as it is rotting in the ground.

Now back to your earlier argument:

Thus, the "spiritual body" isn't speaking of a body that isn't physical (that's gnosticism, and a denial of Jesus' resurrection), but rather a body that is free from law and judgment, that is morally pure and incorruptible

Why would you even say anything about a body being "morally pure" since morals relate to to principles of right and wrong in a person's behavior? It is the "inner man" who makes the choices in regard to behavior, not his body.

 

[themuzicman]

Not all all! Instead, the verses to which you refer speak of "sowing" the natural body as a seed. The key to understanding the verses which you cited is found earlier:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain" (1 Cor.15:36-37).​

Here Paul compares the natural body to a "seed." What is sowed or planted is the seed, the natural body. And until the seed dies and is rotted in the ground it does not produce anything. But once it dies then it brings forth the "body which shall be."

Have you noticed that Wheat seed produces... wheat, just like where the seed came from? The plant that results from the seed is still the same kind of plant that the seed came from.

And keep in mind that the only reason we are planted as seeds is that Adam sinned, earning the result of physical death. Had Adam not sinned, we would all be in the eternal state already.

After the physical body is destroyed something springs out of it and it is widely different from the original body (seed) and the form is completely different. Therefore, we can understand that the words "dishonor," and "weakness" are speaking about the natural body as it is rotting in the ground.

You've missed the point of the passage. The plant that results from a seed isn't "widely different." Indeed, it is more of the same. The picture of the seed dying and being buried in the ground is an image of restoration to what we were intended to be. You don't get apples from wheat seed.

Now back to your earlier argument:



Why would you even say anything about a body being "morally pure" since morals relate to to principles of right and wrong in a person's behavior? It is the "inner man" who makes the choices in regard to behavior, not his body.

Again, you continue in the same error to think that Paul is referring to the physical body. Look at how Paul refers to the natural body: Perishable, dishonor, weak. Do you seriously think that Paul is referring to your bones and organs? We are perishable because of sin. We are dishonorable because of sin. We are weak because of sin. These are the results of our moral failures.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We are perishable because of sin.

No, the natural body has always been perishable. The Scriptures reveal that in order for a person to live forever he must partake of the tree of life (Gen.3:22-24). Since no one has access to that tree anymore all men die.

So a natural body is subject to death. However, when we will be raised from the dead we will put on a "spiritual body":

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:44).​

The Greek word translated "spiritual" means this: "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

We will enter into the heavenly kingdom in very different bodies than the flesh and blood bodies which we now have:

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:49-50).​

In the future we will put on heavenly bodies and Paul describes that body as being "eternal" (2 Cor.5:1). Paul also says that eternal things cannot be seen:

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).​

 

[Derf]

Your problem is that you ignore one of the meanings which is given there, that the Greek word translated spiritual "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of new Testament Words).

Your ideas directly contradict that. What are your credentials in understanding the things in regard to the Greek language?

I have no credentials in the Greek language. But I do feel like I'm well versed in the english language--I've spoken and read it most of 50 years--in which the Vine's resource is written. And if you'll notice, the note about "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" is NOT one of the definitions, but a commentary on the definitions. And I didn't ignore that commentary, but went into a fair amount of detail about what "invisibility" means when applied to intangible things, as well as what invisibility might mean when applied to physical things. Until you've done that, you're reading Vine's commentary with a rather wooden and literal sense that may not apply to the scriptures that you are reading in a wooden and literal sense that also may not apply that way. Something has to give--either there's a physical existence in the eternal state that defines the man, or Job is wrong. Which do you choose?

You confuse the body with the man. Of course it is the "inner man" (who is invisible) who is a spiritual man. For some reason the idea that the body which we are now in are described as being clothed upon escapes you. Perhaps you are willing to argue that we can see with our eyes the inner man?

Why would I pursue an argumentation taken from one of your premises? I think you are saying Job was wrong. You are taking Job's assertion that he will see with his eyes and stand in his flesh AFTER his flesh and his eyes have been eaten by worms, and saying that it applies to the "inner man"? Job did not hope in a spiritual existence, but a "fleshy" one, though I'd hazard to guess that he wasn't speaking of a corruptible flesh (which is one, but not the only use of the word "flesh"), but a changed flesh.

Of course He will "appear" to the believers when they are changed into a spiritual body just like His spiritual body. Besides that, if the Lord Jesus will appear in the same body in which they saw Him after He was raised from the dead then they would know EXACTLY what they will be. But what is said here proves that is not true:

"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" (1 Jn.3:2).​

Again, if the Lord Jesus is now in a flesh and blood body like the one which the Apostles saw after He was raised from the dead then they would no EXACTLY what He will be like and what they will be like.

This is a very good point! Could Jesus' body have experienced a change afterward, like, perhaps, emitting light like at the transfiguration? That's one possibility of what might be changed in us. But it doesn't negate Jesus' resurrection into a physical body that resembled His previous body so much that He retained the scars from His crucifixion. And to cast off that body, which is what you were suggesting He did when He ascended, is as equivalent to a second death as anything I could come up with.

Who says that He has no body? I have always said that when the living saints will meet the Lord Jesus in the air then they will take on a body just like His glorious body. Your mind is so closed on this subject that you cannot even understand the things which those who disagree with you say.

They shall be "changed", but what does that mean? It might mean "take on a body", or it might mean they will experience changes to their bodies. "Taking on a body" is ok with me, as long as there is some correlation with their old body. Without that, you can't have a "resurrection". "Spiritual body" is an oxymoron. We need to figure out what Paul meant by it, and we can't do it by eliminating the thing Job was placing his hope on.

And of course those in heaven will be able to see Him because by that time they will also have spiritual bodies like the Lord Jesus' spiritual body. In fact they will be able to see God who is spirit (Rev.22:3-4).

Do you think that we can see God with the eyes which are a part of our natural bodies?

Another good question! I'll go to the Old Testament for this. There were a number of cases where people saw God, often accompanied by the fear that they would die because they saw God. Moses talked with God "face to face", and He asked God to show him his glory, though God wouldn't except the fading of it (His "backside"):

And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. [Exo 33:18 KJV]
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. [Exo 33:20 KJV]
And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. [Exo 33:23 KJV]​

Moses was physically affected by God's glory, and wore a veil because his face was shining or ceasing to shine, perhaps. This may indicate that God was irradiating Moses with His presence.

Jacob wrestled with God, so he must have seen Him. But I also see where John says we can't see God [No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (John 1:18)]. This is an oxymoronic concept, that Jacob could wrestle with someone that couldn't be seen. We have to deal with the seeming contradiction, and the way we do it usually is that we say that there are appearances of God that are not "actually" God. Sometimes they are referred to as the Angel of the Lord. Jesus was different from these, as He was born to a human mother.

And Paul goes a step further to say: Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever (1 Timothy 6:16). Even in his description of God as "invisible", Paul uses a visual clue--light--to explain it. Is God, perhaps, invisible because He is surrounded by glory in the form of light? Light that we can see? Or maybe that has an effect on our physical bodies? One possibility is that God's light is full spectrum--meaning it comprises both the healthy light that we see and feel (like infrared) as well as that which we can't see nor feel, but can cause damage to our physical bodies (like x-rays and gamma rays). Thus "seeing God" may cause us to die, at least until our bodies are changed to be incorruptible.

As I said before, there are several ways to be invisible. I'm saying I don't know which one Paul is thinking of. And it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to say that our eyes that currently cannot stand to see God's full glory could be changed in the resurrection to be able to see it.

When Paul uses the pronoun [I think you mean "adjective"] "spiritual" to describe our future bodies He is describing the very essence of that body. And again, the Greek word translated 'spiritual' "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power."

[/quote]I disagree that "invisibility" is the "essence" Paul is striving to convey, despite your assertion. The context clearly is referring to something that is LASTING and PERFECTED rather than fleeting and weak. I've given reasons why the "invisibility" part of the connotation doesn't always apply, which boil down to the fact that most of the definitions of "spiritual" are inherently invisible because they are intangible. Jesus, offering to His disciples to touch and feel His body, showed that it was not intangible. Jesus would have to die again to get rid of that body.

We can also see that here Paul uses another adjective to describe the Lord Jesus as he is now in heaven and "invisible":

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (1 Tim.1:17).​

The pronoun [adjective?] is describing the very essence of the Lord Jesus, just like when the following pronoun [adjective?] is used to describe God:

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Col.1:14-15).​

How does an invisible person have an "image"? The very word conveys the idea of sight!

As with any oxymoron, or seeming contradiction, we are left with the task of figuring out what it means without losing either of the supposed contradictory parts. If God is "light" (which expressly denotes something that our eyes can see), but God is "invisible" (which expressly denotes something our eyes cannot see), how can He be both? I think we are both leaning the same way--that in our glorified bodies, we will have the capability to see Him--but disagreeing about why we don't see Him now.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As with any oxymoron, or seeming contradiction, we are left with the task of figuring out what it means without losing either of the supposed contradictory parts. If God is "light" (which expressly denotes something that our eyes can see), but God is "invisible" (which expressly denotes something our eyes cannot see), how can He be both? I think we are both leaning the same way--that in our glorified bodies, we will have the capability to see Him--but disagreeing about why we don't see Him now.

The word "light" as in "God is light" is used in this sense:

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Mt.5:15-16).​

When we read this Greek adjective translated "invisible" referring to the Lord Jesus we can know that with our natural body we are not equipped to see Him:

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (1 Tim.1:7).​

How does an invisible person have an "image"? The very word conveys the idea of sight!

As I said, while in these natural bodies of ours we are not equipped to see the things which are described as "invisible" but those who will put on spiritual bodies will indeed be equipped to see the image of these things (Rev.22:3).

And here the Lord Jesus is described this way:

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Col.1:14-15).​

I disagree that "invisibility" is the "essence" Paul is striving to convey, despite your assertion.

As I said earlier, Paul describes the heavenly body we will put on as being "eternal" (2 Cor.5:1) and he says that the eternal things "are not seen" (2 Cor.4:18).

And if you'll notice, the note about "always connotes the ideas of invisibility and of power" is NOT one of the definitions, but a commentary on the definitions.

Let us look at one of the definitions concerning the "spiritual" body which we will put on later:

"the resurrection body of the dead in Christ is 'spiritual,' i.e., such as is suited to the heavenly environment, 1Cr 15:44" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).​

We know that "flesh and blood" bodies have no place in the heavenly kingdom, as witnessed by what Paul says here:

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:49-50).​

Next, let us look at the definition of the Greek word translated "invisible" in this verse:

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (1 Tim.1:7).​

That Greek word means "either, not seen i.e. 'unseen,' or that which cannot be seen i.e. 'invisible.' In the latter sense of God....Tim. i:17" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon).

The Lord Jesus, in His "spiritual" body, cannot be seen because in our earthly, natural bodies we are not equipped to see Him.

This post is long enough so later I will address your other points.

Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Greetings Derf!

Earlier I quoted this verse:

"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" (1 Jn.3:2).​

if the Lord Jesus is now in a flesh and blood body like the one which the Apostles saw after He was raised from the dead then they would no EXACTLY what He will be like and what they will be like.

to which you replied:

This is a very good point! Could Jesus' body have experienced a change afterward, like, perhaps, emitting light like at the transfiguration? That's one possibility of what might be changed in us. But it doesn't negate Jesus' resurrection into a physical body that resembled His previous body so much that He retained the scars from His crucifixion. And to cast off that body, which is what you were suggesting He did when He ascended, is as equivalent to a second death as anything I could come up with.

Yes, He experienced a changed. but I am not quite sure how it would be possible for a flesh and blood body could emit light. even after He was raised from the dead His flesh and blood bodyn underwent major changes. Even though He was recognized by those who previously knew Him we can see that somethig happened later which resulted in two of His disciples not to recognize Him (Lk.24:16). He could eat and be touched but He could also appear in locked rooms. He also ascended into heaven.

I believe that the bodies in which we will be raised will be like that. Those bodies will be adaptable to fit the environment in which we exist. When in heaven we will have a heavenly body and while on the earth we will have a earthly, natural body.

Does the body which the Lord Jesus has on now one where He looks like a Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (Rev.5:6) or a body like the one described by john at Revelation 1:13-17?

I believe that since the Lord is now in a body which we are not equipped to see that John was given a "vision" of the Lord Jesus in heaven. I do not presume that Lord Jesus’ body has to conform to the dimensions that we know. Although we exist in an four dimensational environment I do not presume that the eternal environment is so limited.

There were a number of cases where people saw God, often accompanied by the fear that they would die because they saw God. Moses talked with God "face to face", and He asked God to show him his glory, though God wouldn't except the fading of it (His "backside"):

I believe that this is a case of the LORD having a supernatural body where He can make Himself conform to any form He wishes.

Jacob wrestled with God, so he must have seen Him. But I also see where John says we can't see God [No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (John 1:18)]. This is an oxymoronic concept, that Jacob could wrestle with someone that couldn't be seen. We have to deal with the seeming contradiction, and the way we do it usually is that we say that there are appearances of God that are not "actually" God. Sometimes they are referred to as the Angel of the Lord. Jesus was different from these, as He was born to a human mother.

This can be cleared up in only one way. What was seen of God and what was wrestled with was a "body" which was adapted to the circumstances. The very essence of the LORD God was not seen.