PDA

View Full Version : Do preterists still take holy communion?



Andrew
01-23-02, 12:24 AM
I was just wondering about this the other day when I read:

1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

but to the preterists, the 2nd coming already happened right? Now that He has come (sometime in AD70), do they still eat the bread and drink the blood till he comes again? Is there a 'third' coming?

Another question I have is this:

1 Cor 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

What Adam did causes us all to experience physical death. That still happens today, obviously. But thru Christ we can all have spiritual life (born again) as well as a literal/physical type ressurrection of the dead spoken of here, in the last day.

Preterists believe that this resurrection has already occurred sometime in AD70. ie there are writings that say tombs were opened and all that (correct me if i'm wrong).

My question is if what Adam did affects all till now, then how come what Christ did affects only those AD70 Christians who exprienced the ressurection (according to preterism)? ie most Christians (AD70 onwards) like us dont come under the blessing of "all be made alive" in v22 (in terms of the ressurrection).

How do preterists interpret these verses?:)

countrymouse
01-23-02, 07:06 AM
All good questions, Andrew :)

I can tell you what many preterists think about these things, but we don't all agree about everything.

First, for 1 Corinthians 11:26 - Most preterists still take communion. Why? According to Matthew 26, Christ said:

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. 29But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom

Notice that Jesus said he would celebrate communion with them in the kingdom. I believe that when I take communion I celebrate it with Jesus, directly in his presence.

-----

I don't know of any preterists who believe that physical death is the kind of death Adam's sin brought to mankind. Why not?

First of all, God told Adam that if he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would die in the day he did it. Adam and Eve did not die physically in that day; instead, they were ushered out of the garden, and clothed in animal skins. These things meant they no longer had God's fellowship, and they needed protection from God's wrath. That is spiritual death! That is the death Christ came to conquer. I am not saying that Christ did not rise bodily from the grave; he did. His resurrection was unique, however. Only to Christ was the promise that his body would not see corruption. I couldn't say exactly how it worked; I believe he rose and his body was transformed into an incorruptible body. At his return, the faithful dead were given incorruptible, spiritual bodies, and those who remained were changed - clothed in eternity. They remained in their physical bodies, but clothed with incorruptibility.

Second, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. That is why we must be clothed from above, with eternity and with the righteousness of Christ, even while we still live in our physical bodies. Otherwise, we could not have fellowship with God. That is why the resurrection is not about raising our corrupted dust and bones sometime in the future.

I hope that helps answer your questions! I'm sure Odyssey and Parousia 70 can add to that to make it clearer.

- countrymouse

Andrew
01-23-02, 07:54 PM
Your reason for taking communion is fine and good, but u still have not really answered my question about "you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes".

If he has indeed come, then why are preterist still proclaiming his death (whenever they take communion)? Unless I'm mistaken -- and preterist actually dont proclaim his death (remember the cross) when they take communion.

No offence, but by giving me another reason to take communion, you are just side-stepping the issue of proclaiming his death.

---------
I don't know of any preterists who believe that physical death is the kind of death Adam's sin brought to mankind. Why not?
---------
A day cld be a 1000 years to the Lord. But i take you point that Adam died spiritually in that 24 hour day. But becos of sin, man dies physically too. in this verse....

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The Greek for 'death' according to Strong's means bodily death.

You have still not answered the question about why Adam's sin affects all, but Christ's work which results in a bodily ressurection only affects the AD70 Christians. Yet the verse says all will benefit. But preterists say only those in AD70 benefitted.

I have more to say but i need to go for now.:cool:

Parousia70
01-23-02, 09:46 PM
Andrew,

As to1Co 11:26
" For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death til he comes.

"Till he comes" dosen't mean we stop after.
Consider 1 Timothy 4:13:
Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

Is Timothy set free from the obligation to "give attendance" to those things once Paul Arrives?

At any rate, I agree with countrymuse that After 70AD, we are eating and drinking with Jesus anew in His Fathers Kingdom.

Communion is no longer a remembrance ceremony.

It IS The "Wedding Supper of the Lamb"

~Peter

countrymouse
01-23-02, 10:12 PM
Hello, Andrew!

I apologize for misunderstanding your question; I wasn't trying to dodge. Do preterists still proclaim Christ's death when we take communion? Yes, and I'm going to borrow an illustration I've read elsewhere, probably at preteristarchive.com. I didn't think it up - it just makes good sense to me.

It's something parents say all the time to kids: "I'm going to the store (or upstairs, or next door, etc.). Behave yourselves until I get back." That doesn't mean the kids are permitted to stop behaving themselves when Mom or Dad gets back home! So, when Christ told his disciples they would be proclaiming his death until he returned, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would cease to proclaim it once he came back. In fact, the symbolism is embedded in the ceremony itself. I don't see how we could take communion and not proclaim the death of Christ. Therefore, since it is an eternal sacrament, yes, preterists still proclaim Christ's death, even though he has already come.

-----

You said that according to Strong's reference, thanatos, the word Paul used for death in Romans 5:12, only means physical death. So I looked it up. Here's the Strong's reference, copied and pasted:

Strong's Ref. # 2288

Romanized thanatos
Pronounced than'-at-os

from GSN2348; (properly, an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively):


Figuratively means that thanatos can also be understood to mean spiritual death.

I also looked up the word Paul used for "die" and "died" in Romans. Here's the Strong's reference for it:


Strong's Ref. # 599

Romanized apothnesko
Pronounced ap-oth-nace'-ko

from GSN0575 and GSN2348; to die off (literally or figuratively):


I remembered a statement Jesus made that was recorded in the gospel of John, chapter 11:
25. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live;
26. and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. Believest thou this?

John used apothnesko both times for the word die; the first, referring to physical death, and the second obviously referring to spiritual death. Notice that apothnesko is a combination, one of whose roots is the same root word for thanatos. John, like Paul, used thanatos for "death."

I conclude that Romans 5:12 can legitimately interpreted to mean spiritual rather than bodily death. Otherwise, the bodily deaths of all believers since he said those words recorded by John would make him a liar and a false prophet.

-----

You also said:
"You have still not answered the question about why Adam's sin affects all, but Christ's work which results in a bodily ressurection only affects the AD70 Christians. Yet the verse says all will benefit. But preterists say only those in AD70 benefitted."

I can see how my answer was not direct and clear. Preterists do not say that only those in AD 70 benefitted from the resurrection.

Paul said later in the same chapter (1 Corinthians 15):
51. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54. But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
56. The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law:
57. but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some preterists believe that this transformation happens when our physical bodies die. Others, like me, believe that it happens when we believe. I believe this because Paul also said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. At the resurrection, it was not only the dead who inherited the kingdom; those yet living also inherited it. Therefore, they had to be changed, clothed with immortality. Only then could they be completely restored to the fellowship Adam and Eve had with God before they sinned. That is what it means to live in the kingdom, whether before or after physical death.

Maybe that's a little clearer.

-----

I noticed that someone else posted to this thread before I finished; if I've duplicated in some way, I apologize.

Andrew
01-23-02, 11:35 PM
----------
Communion is no longer a remembrance ceremony. It IS The Wedding Supper of the Lamb.
----------

Ok, so for parousia and prob many other preterists, taking communion is no longer a "do this in remembrance of me" thing since they are already living in "that day when I [Jesus] drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom".

Thanks for the explanation, but i'm looking forward to the actual time when i eat and drink with Jesus face to face, not just spiritually speaking.

countrymouse,

I do not deny the spiritual death part (its def included). But just as Adam died spiritually then bodily, so we will be made alive spiritually (born again) then bodily (bodily resurrection/rapture). I'm being consistent.

But while preterism separates or acknowledges 2 deaths (spiritual then bodily), it seems to be lumping spiritual rebirth and bodily ressurection as one or the same thing. To me its quite clear that the Bible is talking about 2 separate things.

When the Bible talks about rebirth, it talks about being born of the Spirit, the work of the Holy Spirit. There's not much of a mystery here to anyone who has been born again.

But Paul calls the resurrection a 'mystery' (1 Cor 15:51) - something not yet fully known by us. It talks about being 'changed', in "the twinkling of an eye', at the 'last trumpet sound'. It talks abt the dead being 'raised', and those who remain being 'changed'. Perishable being made imperishable. When we say perishable or imperishable, we are refering to physical/bodily qualities, not spiritual. eg u dont say that an apple is a spiritually perishable good. And when Paul quotes "O death where is your victory" how can this be a total fulfillment in every sense of the word if Christians still fall sick and die today?

Anyway, my main point is that it is quite clear that the Bible is talking about 2 sep things. ie 1 Cor 15's account of the ressurection is not the new birth experience. eg how come the Holy Spirit, Blood or the cross of calvary is not mentioned? as is usu the case when the Bible talks abt rebirth/believing and being saved.

you seem to hold the above view that rebirth=resurrection, but you also said that ...

"Some preterists believe that this transformation happens when our physical bodies die."

This i cannot accept. U mean everytime a Christian body dies, the last trumpet sounds? It's not "last" if it has to keep sounding. Paul clearly talks abt one particular event in which all are affected (dead and remaining), not individually on a case by case basis down thru the millenniums.

so back to my point again. (While not denying Adam's spiritual death) Adam's bodily death is for ALL. Likewise Christ's bodily ressurection shld be for ALL. Not just AD70 Christians.

----------
I remembered a statement Jesus made that was recorded in the gospel of John, chapter 11:
25. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live;
26. and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. Believest thou this?
------------
I dont quite understand your post here. Both "die"s must logically mean physical death. U agree tht v25 is talking abt physical death but so is 26. Shall never die obvioulsy refers to a future physical death since b4 one believes, one is already spiritually dead.

i hope u see what i'm trying to get at
:)

HIS
01-24-02, 03:37 AM
May I ask where this Preterist viewpoint received its origin(s)?

When did this doctrine originate and by who or whom?

Thanks,
HIS

countrymouse
01-24-02, 06:59 AM
HIS,

It would take an entire article's worth of writing to trace the historical roots of the preterist view. In a nutshell, in it's initial form it was much like amillennialism, and included the position that all events of the Olivet Discourse had been fulfilled by the events of the Roman-Jewish war and destruction of the temple, marking the end of the Old Covenant age and polity. That was the view of many late first century and second century believers. They believed that they were in the millennium, that 1,000 did not refer to any particular span of time, and that the resurrection had yet to happen. They did believe that there would be a future (to them) general resurrection, judgment, and destruction of the physical heavens and earth. There are sources that say the apostle John himself was vehemently opposed to the idea that the millennium involved a physical Christ reigning from a physical temple in geographic Jerusalem.

Another opinion, however, began a little later during that period, first with a man who was considered a heretic by many, for other reasons. I'm sorry I can't recall his name. He and his followers believed that Christ's return would usher in a literal, physical millennial reign of Christ on earth. As the view became more widespread and popular, the church leaders who accepted it decided that rather than living during the millennium, they were living in an intermediate "church age" that neither Christ nor the prophets or apostles had foreseen. Augustine later returned the church to its amillenial roots, for a while.

There do seem to have been a few full preterists sparsely scattered throughout church history; most of them probably kept quiet for fear of excommunication and persecution.

You can read much more about it at preteristarchive.com., and that website has links to several other good websites. It also has some links to sites that are a bit off-the-wall as well, though.

Blessings to you,
countrymouse

countrymouse
01-24-02, 08:41 AM
Andrew,

You said:
But while preterism separates or acknowledges 2 deaths (spiritual then bodily), it seems to be lumping spiritual rebirth and bodily ressurection as one or the same thing. To me its quite clear that the Bible is talking about 2 separate things.

Preterism does not lump together spiritual rebirth with bodily resurrection. Spiritual rebirth is a sovereign act of God. Before God performs this sovereign act, we do not even know we need to be saved from sin. Before regeneration, it doesn't matter how many times a person has heard the gospel, he cannot understand it because his mind is corrupted by sin. Jesus said to Nicodemus, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3). The word for "see" in that verse can be used literally or figuratively, to mean "perceive." And so, being born again is not something a believer asks for or waits for, because he or she was not a believer when God gave him or her rebirth.

Bodily resurrection, on the other hand, happens subsequent to belief. One must be transformed, clothed with incorruption (eternity) in order to inherit the promise. That, too, is a sovereign act of God. It first happened to living believers in conjunction with the resurrection of the martyrs of the great tribulation. God continues to do the same thing on a case-by-case basis. No believer is left out or left behind. This is the same thing as the rapture. I am confident that I have been "raptured" already, translated into the eternal kingdom of Christ. When believers die, we simply leave these physical bodies behind. We are no longer separated from God in any way.

As to Christ's statement to Lazarus' sister, you have not understood correctly, in my opinion. Jesus told her that any believer who had died (bodily) would be raised at the resurrection. He then said that anyone still living who believed in him would never die. We know that most of the apostles and a vast number of other believers were martyred before 70AD. We know that bodily death has come to every believer since the day Jesus spoke those words. If Jesus meant that no believer then living would ever die bodily, then he was either lying or mistaken. Since Jesus could not have either been lying or mistaken, he was not speaking of bodily death, but of spiritual death.

You have the right to choose to believe that physical death is a result of Adam's sin. Please respect my right not to believe it. I find nothing in scripture that supports it.

-----

But Paul calls the resurrection a 'mystery' (1 Cor 15:51) - something not yet fully known by us. It talks about being 'changed', in "the twinkling of an eye', at the 'last trumpet sound'. It talks abt the dead being 'raised', and those who remain being 'changed'. Perishable being made imperishable. When we say perishable or imperishable, we are refering to physical/bodily qualities, not spiritual. eg u dont say that an apple is a spiritually perishable good. And when Paul quotes "O death where is your victory" how can this be a total fulfillment in every sense of the word if Christians still fall sick and die today?

Once again, I think you have misunderstood. The human spirit is quite perishable, in the sense that it can be eternally separated from God. Look at 1 Cor. 15:53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. Paul painted a word-picture of putting on immortality in the way one puts on a garment. It is not our bodies that are made incorruptible; this is a picture of inheriting an incorruptible covenant and kingdom. Having our bodies clothed in immortality makes believers able to have even greater communion with God that Adam originally had, since our covenant is the great covenant God always planned to have with his people.

The last trumpet, I believe, was the last call to faith before God's judgment of the Old Covenant world and polity. It does not sound over and over at the assimilation of each believer into the kingdom, for it's purpose was temporal. The call of the gospel, however, goes forth in every generation, and will always do so. It is an eternal gospel, and the increase of Christ's kingdom will never end.

Isaiah 9: 6. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.

Parousia70
01-24-02, 01:03 PM
Andrew,
"i'm looking forward to the actual time when i eat and drink with Jesus face to face, not just spiritually speaking."

By "face to face" do you mean "one on one" or would you consider eating in a stadium , with a hundred thousand or so other Christians, with a physical Christ up on stage "face to face"?

A physical Christ, eating one on one with each individual Christian, would take a lot of time.

Lets say there are 100 million Christians who finally "make it" into your version of the New H&E. Lets say Each gets to spend 10 minutes "one on one, face to face" sharing supper with the Lord.

That works out to each Christian getting to spend 10 minutes one on one with a physical Jesus every 1901 years.

If face to face can be in a 100,000 seat stadium, then each Christian can break bread with Jesus once every 190 years.

That sure would be a long wait just to spend 10 minutes face to face with Jesus!

Seems to me that only a spiritual face to face meeting would be logistically feesable. Unless you propose that Christ will multiply his physical body so each Christian can have one at their beck and call. Kinda like a Santa Clause on every street corner.

How do you see Jesus accomplishing this task in a physical body without any spiritual aspect?

Odyssey
01-24-02, 01:05 PM
Who says 'death' in Genesis means covenantal and physical? God said, '...in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die'--not that Adam will die and then die again. Death is a part of life. It is not the enemy and has never been. The enemy is covenantal death. If a person dies physcally in a state of covenantal death, then too bad so sad! But a Christian will never die! Jesus said so. Now, if he was referring to physical death, then no one has ever believed his words because as Andrew pointed out, people still die physcally. But, god's definition of death is separation from him as we saw from Genesis 2. This has nothing to do with the physical death of people. That assertion has to be proven.

Grace to you,

jak

Odyssey
01-24-02, 01:28 PM
Andrew,

Why is the 'spiritual' side of things looked down upon? That's what I get from your post: 'i'm looking forward to the actual time when i eat and drink with Jesus face to face, not just spiritually speaking.' It's like anything spiritual is not good enough for you. If it doesn't happen in the physical realm, then it can't be good. But the whole ministry of Jesus was based on a higher plain. That is, he kept pointing people to the spiritual truths that the physical realm only copied. For example, Jesus told the woman at the well, 'Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father...But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.' Here we see that Jesus told the woman that a physical building was not the reality anymore! It only pointed to the real--a spiritual worshipping of god.

Grace to you,

jak

countrymouse
01-24-02, 03:14 PM
Thank you, brothers Peter and jak, for expressing these truths so well! Blessing to you both! And any time either of you find me in error, please correct me.

Sincerely,
countrymouse

Andrew
01-24-02, 08:25 PM
-----------
Preterism does not lump together spiritual rebirth with bodily resurrection.
-----------

I'm confused becos you did say:

"Some preterists believe that this transformation happens when our physical bodies die. Others, like me, believe that it happens when we believe."

Nevermind. Since u now argue that its 2 sep things, I'll take it that most preterist believe it's sep.

---------------
Bodily resurrection, on the other hand, happens subsequent to belief.... It first happened to living believers in conjunction with the resurrection of the martyrs of the great tribulation. God continues to do the same thing on a case-by-case basis. No believer is left out or left behind.
----------------
So when were you resurrected BODILY? Yes you were born again but then later experience a BODILY resurrection. So what was it like? Did you hear the trumpet sound or the shout of an archangel as the Bible describes? I have certainly not experienced a bodily resurrection yet. Anyone care to share what it was like? And if you are raptured (from what?), why are you still here? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but these are vald ?s any Christian wld ask.

I also conclude from this that preterism doesnt just believe that the bodily resurrection happened in AD70, but that it still happens to all believers following salvation. Then that really begs the question of why millions of Christians (save the preterists of course) do not know that they have been bodily resurrected.

---------------
You have the right to choose to believe that physical death is a result of Adam's sin. Please respect my right not to believe it. I find nothing in scripture that supports it.
---------------
Okay, so preterism also believes that Adam's sinning does not/did not bring about physical death. Thanks for clearing that up. Scripture support? I take this to be one of many:

Gen 2:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: ..... In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

But as u requested, I repect your belief that physical death was not part of the consequence of Adam's sin.

Andrew
01-24-02, 08:30 PM
Parousia:
--------
By "face to face" do you mean "one on one" or would you consider eating in a stadium , with a hundred thousand or so other Christians, with a physical Christ up on stage "face to face"?
---------
I take it you are joking ie asking a stupid question. so i'll just smile.;)

btw: with God (not man's mathematics & reasoning) all things are possible.

Od,
-----------
Why is the 'spiritual' side of things looked down upon? That's what I get from your post: 'i'm looking forward to the actual time when i eat and drink with Jesus face to face, not just spiritually speaking.' It's like anything spiritual is not good enough for you.
----------
Bro, you certainly got the wrong impression. And u might as well ask why God had to come down in flesh form and dwell among men physically.;)

Parousia70
01-24-02, 10:45 PM
>>with God (not man's mathematics & reasoning) all things are possible.<<

"Come, let us REASON together"

Reason is a gift from God, meant to play a paramount role in our understanding of the scriptures.

I totally agree with God all things are possible, but a physical Jesus on every street corner just isn't very likely. wouldn't you agree?

By saying "With God, all things are possible", you are asserting that It is entirely BECAUSE of the spiritual nature of "face to face" that it can be done. No matter if you view it future or current, you have just demonstrated that it can only be understood and explained as a "spiritual reality".

Thank you for the insight
Peace,
Peter

Andrew
01-25-02, 12:08 AM
Parousia,

I wont argue with u over this point cos its really not important. All I know is God is not limited by time and space. And the physical Jesus in the st corner thing u mentioned just shows that u are still thinking of the Jesus b4 he rose bodily.

Anyway, taking communion today is certainly not the marriage supper of the Lamb. These 2 events are cleary separate and distinct. But if you insist on lumping the 2 together as the same thing, I'll respect your choice. ;)

Parousia70
01-25-02, 12:23 AM
Genesis 2:9
"And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Genesis 2:16
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of EVERY TREE of the garden you may freely eat.

I propose that before the fall, we have no evidence to suggest that Adam did NOT eat as freely from the tree of life as he did from every other tree he was free to eat of. In fact, He was free to eat it or not. The ONLY tree he was banned from eating was the tree of knowledge.

I Don't see any evidence that the tree of life was "only one bite necessary" As long as he continued to choose to eat of the tree of life, I believe he would have remained physically alive. I believe had he not fallen, and instead he freely chose to no longer partake of the tree of life, he would have physically died, however he would never have been seperated from God. Physical death has never been able to seperate people from God who were not already seperated before they died.

Now that all that was lost in adam has been restored in Christ, physical death is, once again, merely Gods servant to bring man into a deeper level of human existance. An existance that was intended from the foundation of the world.

Andrew
01-25-02, 04:11 AM
I propose that before the fall, we have no evidence to suggest that Adam did NOT eat as freely from the tree of life as he did from every other tree he was free to eat of. In fact, He was free to eat it or not. The ONLY tree he was banned from eating was the tree of knowledge.

I Don't see any evidence that the tree of life was "only one bite necessary" As long as he continued to choose to eat of the tree of life, I believe he would have remained physically alive. I believe had he not fallen, and instead he freely chose to no longer partake of the tree of life, he would have physically died, however he would never have been seperated from God.
-----------------

Interesting, but all this is just your theory, or preterism's "i propose...". No offence.

I propose no theories, but just maintain that the Bible is clear that Adam's sin resulted in physical death:

Gen 2:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: ..... In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

peace

HIS
01-25-02, 04:43 AM
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Would it not seem logical to believe that Adam and Eve did experience a "physical" death process, which began on the day that they took of the forbidden fruit?

Of course everyone agrees that they died “spiritually” to some degree. But, could one not suggest that this is when their ageing process began? Is not the process of ageing a physical decaying process? While they had access to the “tree of life,” they could have lived forever!

Gen 3:22 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.

countrymouse
01-25-02, 06:15 AM
Good morning, Andrew,

You had a question about my resurrection experience: Forgive me for repetition, but for the sake of understanding, I'm going to include a quote from on of my previous posts:

"Some preterists believe that this transformation happens when our physical bodies die. Others, like me, believe that it happens when we believe. I believe this because Paul also said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. At the resurrection, it was not only the dead who inherited the kingdom; those yet living also inherited it. Therefore, they had to be changed, clothed with immortality. Only then could they be completely restored to the fellowship Adam and Eve had with God before they sinned. That is what it means to live in the kingdom, whether before or after physical death."

I realize that your tradition holds personal experience in much higher esteem than I do. As for my personal new birth and resurrection experiences, I don't know what either felt like - I didn't feel anything. I have believed since I was a child, a young child, in fact. Lol, (and thanks be to God) I got popped enough to know I was a sinner, early on! I can anticipate your next question: How do I know I've been saved? Answer - first, I know because I have believed, and John 3:16, among many other passages, tells me I have eternal life. Second, I have seen what I would be, apart from Christ; therefore I know the difference he has made in my life!

Did I feel it when I was clothed with eternity from on high, and inherited the kingdom, raptured into its fellowship? Apparently not, since I can't remember it! Am I convinced that it did happen? Completely. My faith rests upon the promises of the Bible, all of them!

-----

As for Adam's death, I don't expect to be able to convince you; let me simply repeat that what I see is that Adam and Eve indeed died spiritually the very day they indulged in the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Food for thought: If physical death is a result of sin, and not part of God's original plan, what if Adam and Eve had never sinned? How many generations would it have taken to completely populate the earth? I haven't seen the math on that, but I can surmise it would have been full long before now. Could it be that God wants more sons and daughters than this planet can hold, a great and eternally-increasing kingdom? Frankly, based on the whole counsel of Scripture, that is what I think. But you must decide for yourself. The time will come when we will both know for sure!

by grace through faith,
countrymouse

Parousia70
01-25-02, 09:47 AM
>>I propose no theories, but just maintain that the Bible is clear that Adam's sin resulted in physical death:

Gen 2:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: ..... In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.<<

Andrew,
The scripture you site, as far as I can see, only promises that BECAUSE of th fall, Adam will eat bread in the sweat of his face until his body returns to the ground. Had he never fell, he would have eaten from the garden, in peace, instead.

This scripture does not prove physical death was a result of the fall IMO

I absolutely respect your right to believe otherwise.

Peace,
Peter

Andrew
01-25-02, 10:44 AM
countrymouse,
good morning ot you too!

-----------
Did I feel it when I was clothed with eternity from on high, and inherited the kingdom, raptured into its fellowship? Apparently not, since I can't remember it! Am I convinced that it did happen? Completely. My faith rests upon the promises of the Bible, all of them!
-----------
Come on, stop deluding yourself. You have not been raptured. I'm not putting you down. You are certainly born again, but not raptured yet. I'm telling you the real thing is coming, and you prob live to experience it.

-----------
As for Adam's death, I don't expect to be able to convince you; let me simply repeat that what I see is that Adam and Eve indeed died spiritually the very day they indulged in the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
-----------
You still dont seem to get the point. No one is denying the spiritual death. But the Bible is clear that Adam's sin resulted in dust to dust to. ie physical death. Dont just ignore Gen 2:17.

-----------
Food for thought: If physical death is a result of sin, and not part of God's original plan, what if Adam and Eve had never sinned?
-----------
Why are u speculating? It's not gonna lead anywhere. We all know Adam sinned.

parousia,
---------
The scripture you site, as far as I can see, only promises that BECAUSE of th fall, Adam will eat bread in the sweat of his face until his body returns to the ground. Had he never fell, he would have eaten from the garden, in peace, instead.
-----------
come on, you are just squeezing your way out of this! and the last comment is just pure speculation!

sin ---> curse (includes death) / no sin ---> no curse (no death)

When the Bible says "thou shalt surely die", "die" according to strong means

04191 \^twm\^ muwth {mooth}

a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v

AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31,
dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835

1) to die, kill, have one executed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to die
1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
1d) (Hophal)
1d1) to be killed, be put to death
1d1a) to die prematurely

How can you expect me to believe that all of the above is purely spiritual-speaking only?!

countrymouse
01-25-02, 03:33 PM
Andrew,

Your partial quote was unfair -

(countrymouse)
Food for thought: If physical death is a result of sin, and not part of God's original plan, what if Adam and Eve had never sinned?

Here's the entire quote:

Food for thought: If physical death is a result of sin, and not part of God's original plan, what if Adam and Eve had never sinned? How many generations would it have taken to completely populate the earth? I haven't seen the math on that, but I can surmise it would have been full long before now. Could it be that God wants more sons and daughters than this planet can hold, a great and eternally-increasing kingdom? Frankly, based on the whole counsel of Scripture, that is what I think. But you must decide for yourself. The time will come when we will both know for sure!

If you are going to quote me, please do not misrepresent what I'm saying by using only partial quotes. Such tactics are beneath Christians.

By the way, I will not ridicule you when we disagree; please do not ridicule me, or anyone else on this discussion board either. There is a difference between being enthusiastic about your beliefs and being rude. Parousia and I both stated our positions as opinions. I believe you can return the same courtesy.

Throughout the history of the church, there have been varying opinions regarding eschatology. The partial preterist position, which regards the Olivet discourse as having been fulfilled, is known to be as old as the church itself. It is possible that during the last years of the first century AD, the full preterist position was generally regarded as orthodox. The primary historic disagreement has been about the millennium and final judgment. The currently popular paradigm represented by Impe, Lindsay, and Lahaye has its historical roots in the second century AD, as do historical amillennialism and postmillenialism. In its current form, it dates to the 19th century to John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism.

Eschatology has from early on been a controversial subject. When we cannot agree, we would do well to politely agree to disagree.

by grace through faith,
countrymouse

countrymouse
01-25-02, 04:54 PM
Addendum:

Strong's Ref. # 4191

Romanized muwth
Pronounced mooth

a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:


Isn't it interesting that in Genesis 6:17 a different word for die is used, gava, which means "to breath out," or to give up the breath of life. The two different words are used interchangeably in the flood account.

Hebrew is a picture-language; much of it has to be translated as figurative in order to render an English translation that makes any sense at all.

Just as many words in English can be understood either literally or figuratively, so can many words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Since you prize literal translation so highly, tell me what this verse says, when translated literally:

Luke18:17. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.

Andrew
01-25-02, 08:20 PM
countrymouse,

I apologise if you are offended, but I've already shown you with Strong's that "die" means "die". If you want to include "spiritual death" in that that's fine with me, but dont simply chuck out the literal meaning.

Also, do u realise that you are not being logical in your explanations regarding the resurrection of the dead? First you said it is new birth experience, then you said its a separate experience that follows salvation. I take it your final stand is the latter.

Then while you believe that Christ was raised bodily, you tell me that you didnt feel a thing when you were raised bodily/raptured. You are not sure when it happened. U heard no trumpet sound, no shout of an archangel, and no being caught up to meet the Lord in the air since you are still down here. And preterists expect Christians around the world today to believe that all these things have happened to them sometime after salvation?

Of course, you'd argue its spiritual (so what does bodily mean then when you say you were raised bodily?) Anyway that leads to another problem, if its 'spiritual', why do you need to be raised again? When you were born again, your spirit was made alive in Christ Jesus. So why did it need to be raised from the dead again later on? Is there a time when Christians die spiritually again, so that they can be resurrected? Raised from the dead is clearly for those who are literally in their graves. The Bible does not describe those who are alive and remain as being raised from their graves, but being caught up to the Lord.

The rapture described in the Bible indeed speaks of 2 things - the dead being raised first from their graves, followed by those who remain and are alive being caught up with the Lord. Both occur one after the other in one event. Yet you maintain that either one (actually the former only since you refer to raised not caught up) happens to any Christian following salvation. So rather than one significant event, there will be multiple events down the millennium, where one is either raised spiritually from the grave, or raised while they are still alive. It simply goes against scripture desribing it as one event.

And if that's the case, why must some Christians wait until they are in their graves to be raised, while others are 'raised' when they are alive - since you maintain that it happens to all Christians following salvation?

So can you see all the problems this doctrine creates? Yet everything fits perfectly when you believe in a future physical/bodily rapture, a one time event where those who have died in Christ are raised from their graves and those who are alive are then caught up to meet the Lord.

I sincerely hope that you will think about what I said.

peace

countrymouse
01-25-02, 10:53 PM
Hi, Andrew!

I do appreciate the apology, and there are no hard feelings. I do understand the viewpoint you're coming from, because it used to be mine, too.

You said:Also, do u realise that you are not being logical in your explanations regarding the resurrection of the dead? First you said it is new birth experience, then you said its a separate experience that follows salvation. I take it your final stand is the latter.

I don't believe I ever said that bodily resurrection is the new birth experience. Sorry if I said something that led you to that conclusion, though. Give me until after the weekend, if you will, and I'll try to put together a less hasty explanation. Your understanding of bodily resurrection and rapture differ from mine. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, it will take me some time to explain how I arrived at the full preterist position.

I do believe there was a corporate resurrection and rapture of believers following the great tribulation, which was Nero's persecution according to the preterist view. But again, the nature of that event looks different to me than it does to you.

I promise to get back to this, ASAP! Have a good weekend.

Respectfully,
countrymouse

Odyssey
01-26-02, 08:32 AM
Andrew,

You keep citing Gen 2.17 as proof of physical death as part of the package, but you seem to be leaving out the word 'til.' As it has already been shown, the word 'til' (or until) shows something of a known occurance. That is, if a parent says to his/her child, 'Be good til I get back,' means that the parent is coming back and that the child should be good before, during and after. Not that the parent was never coming back at all. The same is true with Adam. He was already dying (the Hebrew states 'in dying you shall die'). God's point was the he would have to work hard for what he had abundantly in the garden.

Also, just because the definition of the word means to 'die' (which I don't think anyone is denying), the context (which is something you seem to be ignoring) clearly shows us god's definition of death, i.e., separation from him. God said, '...the day you eat from it you will surely die'--not that they will 'begin dying' (as HIS pointed out) and that some day (339450 days later) he will eventually die. What you are suggesting is the same as the serpent; that god didn't really mean what he said. God meant exactly what he said. Adam and Eve were not separated from physical life that day. They were separated from covenantal life. And that judgment was passed on to all they represented. We have to stop looking at Scripture through our understanding and try to figure out how the original audience understood what was being said or read. Which leads me to my next point.

You are great one to be hammering us on the 'literal' meaning of words for you have to twist the clearest passages! The passages you allude to regarding the rapture are full of 'time statements.' Paul expected the Thessalonians and himself to experience the event he wrote about. Yet you, because of you 'literal' interpretation, state that it hasn't happened yet because it hasn't been recorded in history. However, you seem to skip over the 'literal' time statements. Furthermore, you state that we will probably experience it! How can that be? Where is your proof? The apostles and Christ himself told the first century church that they would experiance it and according to your view, they were wrong; what's your proof that you are right?

Grace to you,

jak

Andrew
01-27-02, 09:39 AM
Od,

Thanks for your reply. But I'm waiting for countrymouse's reply to my questions.

And I could imagine u asking the same type of ? the serpent asked:"Did God really say there was going to be a bodily resurrection?"

-------
.... for you have to twist the clearest passages!
-------
funny u shld ask this, for this is what preterism does. :o

Odyssey
01-27-02, 09:57 AM
Andrew,

The resurrection is referred to many times in Scripture. So is death. In both cases, however, they are not all referring to a physical body. That is the point of the time statements. If they state that Christ was to return within the first century generation (which they do), then the resurrection (and the other events) need to be looked at differently. That is all that preterism does--it recognizes the fulfillment of Scripture when it was supposed to be fulfilled and, because of the timing, looks for the answers to the obvious questions (how were the dead raised, was there a 'rapture,' is Satan judged, etc). Futurism ignores the time statements and holds to it's sensational 'literal' fulfillment. Because those events can't (or haven't) be seen with the naked eye, they must not have been fulfilled yet. But that brings into question the authority of god, Jesus, the HS, and the apostles and the validity of Jesus being god in the flesh. As it has been shown countless times, the time statements are valid and need to be addressed, something futurism ignores.

Grace to you,

jak

Andrew
01-27-02, 10:02 AM
Od,
Thanks again but I'll stay focused on the bodily resurrection questions i have for countrymouse for the time being. this is just so that the thread doesnt go all over the place. No point oging on to other areas when one aread is not settled yet. ;)

countrymouse
01-27-02, 04:46 PM
Hi, Andrew!

I will get back to this tomorrow morning; my telephone line is needed by my teenager. :)

countrymouse
01-28-02, 12:24 AM
Well, technically it is tomorrow morning! A zinc gluconate product I dare not name for dread of being sued has left me unable to sleep. (I have a cold). I suspect there's some decongestant in it that's not on the label!


I've prepared the following as a partial response to your questions; It's about as in depth a response as I'm going to have time to give.

Again, I'm not expecting to steer you from your point of view; I would caution you once more that you're not likely to change my mind, either. That's the Holy Spirit's job. I'm not saying we can't talk about it further; just let's remember to be respectful.

Here it is.

btw, I've used KJV in case Steven wants to read it and respond; I don't want to offend or exclude anyone.

=====

The Transformation of the Living Believer:

1 Corinthians 15: (KJV)
35. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

[It looks like Paul thought this was a silly question. I detect some impatience here! Apparently some of the Corinthians were concerned about loved ones whose bodies were already decaying in their graves. Either that, or the question was posed by opponents of the doctrine of resurrection.]

37. 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:
38. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption [natural]; it is raised in incorruption [spiritual]:
43. It is sown in dishonour; 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. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

[The above passage concerns the resurrection of those whose bodies had already died.]

50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56. The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

[The living would have to be changed, because in their flesh and blood bodies, they could not inherit the kingdom.]

-----

So how are those who remain changed, according to the preterist view?

In the above passage, Paul likened this change to clothing oneself in a garment, this particular garment being immortality.


If we examine other passages in the New Testament, we find that inheriting eternal life was an event yet future; they hadn’t come into their inheritance. They had the promise (John 3:16), but not the realization of it.

Mark 10:30 (and Luke 18:29)
28Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, 30But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world [aion, “age”] to come eternal life.

“This world” (or age) referred to the old covenant polity, and “the world (age) to come referred to the Messianic new covenant kingdom. The incarnation and ministry of Christ marked the beginning of the last days, the end of the old covenant world.

1 Timothy 6:
12Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
17Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Titus 1:
1Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; 2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

[That which is hoped for is not yet realized.]

Titus 3:
4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life


Revelation 2: [to the church at Ephesus]
7He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

[to Smyrna]
11He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Revelation 3: [to Sardis]
5He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

[to Philadelphia]
12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:

Conclusion: This change Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15 was the realization, the actual inheritance of eternal life.

-----

2 Corinthians 5:
1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

[The earthly house, the tabernacle Paul wrote about here, was the temple in Jerusalem. The “building of God,” by contrast, is not made by human hands, meaning the earthly one was man-made. Human bodies are not man-made, but the earthly temple was. The building of God is, by contrast, “eternal in the heavens.” The New Jerusalem was to come down to earth from heaven.]

5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

[Notice that although they had the Spirit, Paul considered himself and them absent from the Lord while they were at home in the body. Their fellowship was not yet full.]

Conclusion: The living were waiting not only for the realization of eternal life in the sense of never-ending time, but also in the sense of being gathered into the heavenly tabernacle, the New Jerusalem, the kingdom that was not of this world, not made with human hands.


13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then 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.

The apostle John, among others, still walked the earth after the destruction of the temple, the event that, according to the preterist view marked the annulment of the Old Covenant and the full establishment of the Messianic kingdom on earth. That's one of the reasons preterists interpret the rapture as a change in the position of believers, who were at that time, along with the dead who had been raised, given authority to rule over the nations with Christ, thus the phrases “in the clouds,” and “together with them in the air.”

As for each believer since then having to hear the trumpet call:

At the feast of Pentecost following Jesus’ ascension, when the Holy Spirit was initially poured out on the believers gathered there to wait, there was a “mighty rushing wind” and there were “cloven tongues” of fire that came down to rest on the believers. We know that, subsequent to that, the Holy Spirit was poured out on those who had believed but were not gathered there at the time, and on those who believed later on. The first pouring out was a corporal event, marking a milestone in the life of the church; it was the only pouring out at which the sound of rushing wind and the appearance of cloven tongues occurred. However, the Holy Spirit was not limited only to those who were gathered there that day.

=====

I know I haven't fully answered your challenge about the death Adam was supposed to die from eating of the tree of knowledge. Do reconsider Odyssey's posts; he and I pretty much agree about it. I will, however, get back to you about it.


Blessings,
countrymouse

countrymouse
01-28-02, 12:33 AM
addendum:

I did say on another thread that I believed we already have our spiritual bodies: After re-examining the issue, I have changed my mind. The spiritual body is something we receive at the death of our mortal bodies; as Paul said, it isn't raised unless it is first sown.

Later!
countrymouse

Odyssey
01-28-02, 05:41 AM
cm,

How can it be sown 'alive'? That is, the physical body. Paul's analogy deals with a live seed being 'sown.' Then it 'dies' and decays and brings forth a new thing. The human body is not 'sown.' Sowing seed deals with the live seed being spread on top of the soil. Human bodies are not 'sown'--they are buried. Also, they are not buried 'alive' for they are already dead. So how can this view work? I have heard it before.

Grace to you,

jak

countrymouse
01-28-02, 06:50 AM
good morning, jak!

I am fuzzy on this one. Do we already have our spiritual bodies?
I certainly could have misunderstood.

Blessings,
countrymouse

Odyssey
01-28-02, 07:38 AM
It seems so, what with Paul stating that at the resurrection, those who were alive are changed.

Grace to you,

jak

countrymouse
01-28-02, 12:31 PM
I agree that those yet living were changed, and so are we clothed with immortality, gathered into community, and given authority just as they were. But does that mean we've been given our spiritual bodies? Maybe; I'm going to keep looking into that. Perhaps that's what Paul meant by being clothed with immortality.

Paul did say "that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies" in verse 36 (1Cor. 15). Verses 35-49 do seem to be about the resurrection of those who had already died.

Thanks for the reply, and...

Blessings to you,
countrymouse

countrymouse
01-28-02, 01:28 PM
Andrew,

Concerning Genesis 2:17, Odyssey is right, and there is no reason to read physical death into it. As I've said before, the Hebrew word there can be understood either literally or figuratively.

As to Genesis 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”


My analysis: here's what God said would happen as punishment for mankind because Adam sinned:

Eve would bear children with increased pain and sorrow. She would be ruled over by Adam, rather than being an appropriate helper for him, a companion.

The ground was cursed, reducing the fruitfulness of Adam's labor. Adam, from then on, got thorns and thistles in spite of sweat and toil.

-----

Fruitfulness is a major Biblical theme, tied in with reaping what we sow. Here with Adam, as with Eve, we see sin interfering with that principle, causing fruitlessness. It's a major theme in Old Testament judgments; prophets often warned the Israelites that if they disobeyed, they would build houses, but others would dwell in them. They would sow crops, but someone else would harvest and eat them.

-----

Untimely physical death, especially violent death, is another major theme in Old Testament judgments. Whole families or cultures were sometimes annihilated to remove their names or legacies from the face of the earth.

Nowhere, however, does the Bible treat physical death at a ripe old age as judgment, or a result of sin.

=====

Also, being sent away from one's home or community was considered a curse in ancient middle eastern thought. Adam and Eve's ejection from the garden home God had provided for them was a beautifully middle eastern picture of spiritual death; to the ancient middle easterner being rejected in such a manner meant being rejected by one's god, for in their minds, gods were local entities.

In addition, God's provision of animal skins for coverings meant that he was protecting them against his wrath, so that he would not cause them to die in an untimely manner. Every time God's wrath broke out against his people in the Old Testament, somebody died before his time!

=====

Conclusion: there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the curse of sin is physical death; sin's curse is separation from God. Prior to the Messianic covenant, all who died awaited the resurrection in Sheol, the grave, away from God's fellowship. That is why sin was the sting of death. Now, in the new covenant age, physical death no longer separates us from God.


=====

Odyssey said:

The passages you allude to regarding the rapture are full of 'time statements.' Paul expected the Thessalonians and himself to experience the event he wrote about. Yet you, because of you 'literal' interpretation, state that it hasn't happened yet because it hasn't been recorded in history. However, you seem to skip over the 'literal' time statements. Furthermore, you state that we will probably experience it! How can that be? Where is your proof? The apostles and Christ himself told the first century church that they would experiance it and according to your view, they were wrong; what's your proof that you are right?

I wonder, also, what you make of the time statements in scripture regarding Christ's return. Perhaps, now that we preterists have answered some of your questions, you could answer some of ours. Fair enough?

Respectfully,
countrymouse

Andrew
01-28-02, 10:06 PM
countrymouse,

you cannot simply take out this part

"Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return"

...and say that it is not a consequence of Adam's sin.

Adam sinned, the curse was pronounced, and part of the curse was physical death.

Finally, the word die in Hebrew has a literal physical sense. While I have included the spiritual sense, you have simply ignored the literal sense altogether. In Bible study, a rule of thumb is to read it as it is, and not add our own meaning to it.

I will answer your resurrection body in a new thread as this one was supposed to be about communion!