The Resurrection Body and 1st Cor. 15

[The Biblicist]

Hi Pinoybaptist. BTW we will be heading for Cebu (and maybe a few other regions) in a few months.

I also don't think we will have flesh and blood. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". It seems clear to me. What is your take on that verse?

The term "flesh and blood" is used metaphorical as literal "flesh and blood" cannot impart knowledge as in Matthew 16:17. It is a metaphorical phrase that respresents the unglorified state of man or man in his earthly pre-resurrected condition. Man in his earthly pre-resurrected condition cannot inherit the kingdom of God BECAUSE his physical body still retains the principle of "corruption" which is removed at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:52-57).

The "spiritual" body is also a metaphor that represents the glorified state of the human physical resurrected body wherein the principle of "corruption" has been removed. Here "spiritual" is in contrast to "earthly" or the pre-resurrected state of the physical body - meaning under no influence of death but totally under the influence of LIFE or the Spirit of God - spirit, soul and body!

 

[asterisktom]

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house G3613 oikētērion which is from heaven: 2 Cor 5:2

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
habitation, G3613 oikētērion he hath reserved in everlasting chains under
darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6

The angels (sons of God) that "left their first estate" gave up their glorified bodies
to come to earth and copulated with human women to produce hybrid nephilim. Genesis 6:1-4

I like those verses. They do go together. Did you notice there was a reference to a singular entity ("house", not "houses"; "habitation", not "habitations")?

Those singular nouns do not really justify your application, "glorified bodies". And the part about the angels cohabiting with humans is more Chuck Missler than "Thus saith the Lord".

 

[The Biblicist]

I like those verses. They do go together. Did you notice there was a reference to a singular entity ("house", not "houses"; "habitation", not "habitations")?

Those singular nouns do not really justify your application, "glorified bodies". And the part about the angels cohabiting with humans is more Chuck Missler than "Thus saith the Lord".

Have you really never heard of the generic use of nouns? Like "the old man" or "the flesh" or "the laborer" or "the wife" or "the husband" etc.

 

[The Biblicist]

QUESTIONS:

1. Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 about the spiritual resurrection of the metaphorical body of Christ the church OR is it about the physical bodily resurrection of Christ?

2. Is 1 Corinthains 15:5-11 about witnesses of the spiritual resurrection of the metaphorical body of Christ the church OR about witnesses of the physical resurrected body of Christ?

3. Is 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 and the repeated words "the dead" refer to the metaphorical body of Christ the church OR about the physical body of Christ that had actually died and the physical body of saints who have actually died?

4. This context is about the resurrection of "the dead" is it not? What is "dead" and what has "died" that needs to be resurrected? He applies this to those "in Christ" who have physically died (sleep in Jesus) in verse 18. Why have they "perished" if there be no resurrection of "the dead"??? What aspect of those "in Christ" which sleep is still "dead"? Their spiri and soul OR their body???

MORE QUESTIONS:

1. Why are "we" (Christians) still "in our sins" if Christ did not rise physically from the grave? Or if "the dead" rise not, such as those already "in Christ" but "sleep"????

2. Why is our (Christians) faith "in vain" if Christ did not rise physically from the grave OR if those who sleep "in Christ" are not raised up or "the dead" not raised?

The answer should be obvious! Death is not conquored and therefore sin has not been paid in full, if Christ's DEAD physical body remained in the grave as there is no VICTORY over death yet! Hence, if there is no victory over death in the physical body of our Savior we are still in our sins and our faith is vain of any future deliverance from death and sin - "if the dead rise not." If Christ had no victory over death - no one has any hope for such victory over death.


TO DENY THE PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE PHYSICAL BODY OF CHRIST (and thus the basis of our (Christian) physical resurrection from "the dead") IS TO REPUDIATE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST AND PREACH ANOTHER GOSPEL AND THOSE WHO DO ARE TO BE REGARDED AS "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) and "false witnesses" (1 Cor. 15).

 

[The Biblicist]

QUESTIONS:

1. Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 about the spiritual resurrection of the metaphorical body of Christ the church OR is it about the physical bodily resurrection of Christ?

2. Is 1 Corinthains 15:5-11 about witnesses of the spiritual resurrection of the metaphorical body of Christ the church OR about witnesses of the physical resurrected body of Christ?

3. Is 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 and the repeated words "the dead" refer to the metaphorical body of Christ the church OR about the physical body of Christ that had actually died and the physical body of saints who have actually died?

4. This context is about the resurrection of "the dead" is it not? What is "dead" and what has "died" that needs to be resurrected? He applies this to those "in Christ" who have physically died (sleep in Jesus) in verse 18. Why have they "perished" if there be no resurrection of "the dead"??? What aspect of those "in Christ" which sleep is still "dead"? Their spiri and soul OR their body???


MORE QUESTIONS:

1. Why are "we" (Christians) still "in our sins" if Christ did not rise physically from the grave? Or if "the dead" rise not, such as those already "in Christ" but "sleep"????

2. Why is our (Christians) faith "in vain" if Christ did not rise physically from the grave OR if those who sleep "in Christ" are not raised up or "the dead" not raised?

The answer should be obvious! Death is not conquored and therefore sin has not been paid in full, if Christ's DEAD physical body remained in the grave as there is no VICTORY over death yet! Hence, if there is no victory over death in the physical body of our Savior we are still in our sins and our faith is vain of any future deliverance from death and sin - "if the dead rise not." If Christ had no victory over death - no one has any hope for such victory over death.


TO DENY THE PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE PHYSICAL BODY OF CHRIST (and thus the basis of our (Christian) physical resurrection from "the dead") IS TO REPUDIATE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST AND PREACH ANOTHER GOSPEL AND THOSE WHO DO ARE TO BE REGARDED AS "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) and "false witnesses" (1 Cor. 15).

20 ¶ But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

If its is the PHYSICAL body of Christ that the gospel speaks of in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 AND if it is the PHYSICAL bodily resurrection that the apostles were eyewitnesses of in 1 Cor. 15:5-11 AND if it is the PHYSICAL body of Jesus Christ that must have overcome physical death in 1 Cor. 15:12-19 or else both living and "the dead" believer's faith is vain (those already "in Christ") and still in their sins, then it is the PHYSICAL body of Christ that has "risen from THE DEAD" and become "THE FIRSTFRUITS" of them that slept" sa the only hope of "the dead" and only object of their faith to overcome death!

Do you know the meaning of "firstfruits"? It is the first part of the harvest with a fuller harvest yet to follow it. If its is the firstfruits of a barley harvest then it is barely that is gathered as "firstfruit" and it is barely that will be gathered at the full harvest.

It is the PHYSICAL BODY that was raised from the dead that is the "firstfruits" and therefore it must be the PHYSICAL BODIES of "them that slept" which must be raised in the full gathering.

Surely, no one is going to argue that Christ was SPIRITUALLY dead and had to be raised to SPIRITUAL LIFE?

Surely, no one is going to argue that those already "in Christ" which sleep are SPIRITUALLY DEAD and must be raised to SPIRITUAL life???? The only rational conclusion is that it is the PHYSICAL BODILY resurrection of "the dead" which are "in Christ" who sleep will be raised due to the "firstfruits" of Christ's physical body having been raised!

 

[beameup]

I like those verses. They do go together. Did you notice there was a reference to a singular entity ("house", not "houses"; "habitation", not "habitations")?

Those singular nouns do not really justify your application, "glorified bodies". And the part about the angels cohabiting with humans is more Chuck Missler than "Thus saith the Lord".

Yes, each of Satan's bene ha Elohim gave up their "glorified" body (singular).
In a sense, they each "downgraded" in order to perform their task of polluting the human genome.
Only Noah and his family were spared in Satan's attempt to corrupt the bloodline of the future Messiah.

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations [uncorrupted DNA], and Noah walked with God. Gen 6:9

Pretty simple and easy to understand... with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, each of Satan's bene ha Elohim gave up their "glorified" body (singular).
In a sense, they each "downgraded" in order to perform their task of polluting the human genome.
Only Noah and his family were spared in Satan's attempt to corrupt the bloodline of the future Messiah.

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations [uncorrupted DNA], and Noah walked with God. Gen 6:9

Pretty simple and easy to understand... with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe "the sons of God" gave up anything. It was their progeny who intermarried with the sons of Cain that produced "giants" in the sense of renowned ungodly sinners. There was no angelic cohabitation between humans and angels, as this occurred both before and after the flood. It was happening in the days of Nehemiah where the faith was contaminated by mixed marriages with the ungodly. Angels do not have human reproductive capability and never will.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe "the sons of God" gave up anything. It was their progeny who intermarried with the sons of Cain that produced "giants" in the sense of renowned ungodly sinners. There was no angelic cohabitation between humans and angels, as this occurred both before and after the flood. It was happening in the days of Nehemiah where the faith was contaminated by mixed marriages with the ungodly. Angels do not have human reproductive capability and never will.

I would suggest that fallen Angels could have possessed evil men bodies, and thus have procreated, but this to me is a secondary issue!

 

[percho]

20 ¶ But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

If its is the PHYSICAL body of Christ that the gospel speaks of in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 AND if it is the PHYSICAL bodily resurrection that the apostles were eyewitnesses of in 1 Cor. 15:5-11 AND if it is the PHYSICAL body of Jesus Christ that must have overcome physical death in 1 Cor. 15:12-19 or else both living and "the dead" believer's faith is vain (those already "in Christ") and still in their sins, then it is the PHYSICAL body of Christ that has "risen from THE DEAD" and become "THE FIRSTFRUITS" of them that slept" sa the only hope of "the dead" and only object of their faith to overcome death!

Do you know the meaning of "firstfruits"? It is the first part of the harvest with a fuller harvest yet to follow it. If its is the firstfruits of a barley harvest then it is barely that is gathered as "firstfruit" and it is barely that will be gathered at the full harvest.

It is the PHYSICAL BODY that was raised from the dead that is the "firstfruits" and therefore it must be the PHYSICAL BODIES of "them that slept" which must be raised in the full gathering.

Surely, no one is going to argue that Christ was SPIRITUALLY dead and had to be raised to SPIRITUAL LIFE?

Surely, no one is going to argue that those already "in Christ" which sleep are SPIRITUALLY DEAD and must be raised to SPIRITUAL life???? The only rational conclusion is that it is the PHYSICAL BODILY resurrection of "the dead" which are "in Christ" who sleep will be raised due to the "firstfruits" of Christ's physical body having been raised!

I might would argue that when Jesus dismissed his spirit unto the hands of the Father, Jesus was soul dead, in a corruptible body and that before/after three days and three nights were in the past Spirit life took his soul from Hades, in an incorruptible body.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, (Jesus, the once living soul) being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18 with an added note.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (Whose soul was not left in Hades) was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; (the once living soul Jesus whose soul was not left in Hades) and afterward (after the resurrection) that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:45,46


I believe Jesus does have the preeminence as the firstborn from the dead, does he not?

 

[beameup]

Angels do not have human reproductive capability and never will.

Prove it.
"Angels in heaven" neither marry or are given in marriage.
You have to read the "fine print". The Holy Spirit gives insight.
bene ha Elohim always refers to angels in the Old Testament... every single time.
Is it "scary" to think that angels might be much, much "closer" to humans? Or that angels have DNA?
It neither scares me, no surprises me that such is the case. I don't follow Augustine of Hippo's "theology".

 

[The Biblicist]

Prove it.
"Angels in heaven" neither marry or are given in marriage.
You have to read the "fine print". The Holy Spirit gives insight.
bene ha Elohim always refers to angels in the Old Testament... every single time.
Is it "scary" to think that angels might be much, much "closer" to humans? Or that angels have DNA?
It neither scares me, no surprises me that such is the case. I don't follow Augustine of Hippo's "theology".

Angels do not have DNA as they are "spirit" and DNA is physical by nature. They are not compatible with human nature as Jesus did not take upon the nature of angels but of humans proving they are not the same. They do not have repoductive capability as they are "spirits" and are not given in marraige. The phrase "sons of God" does not always refer to angels in fact it never does but one time in Job's creation passage. In the previous passages in Job is talking about the public worship services of God's children.

 

[beameup]

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him,
and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. [ie: all things are held together] Col 1:16-17
Jesus holds all things together by the power of his might.

Does Jesus now have DNA? Are angels [bene ha Elohim] able to eat and drink?

 

[percho]

Angels do not have DNA as they are "spirit" and DNA is physical by nature. They are not compatible with human nature as Jesus did not take upon the nature of angels but of humans proving they are not the same. They do not have repoductive capability as they are "spirits" and are not given in marraige. The phrase "sons of God" does not always refer to angels in fact it never does but one time in Job's creation passage. In the previous passages in Job is talking about the public worship services of God's children.

I think I agree with you concerning the angels. However I would like to ask concerning spirit.

Was Jesus born of the virgin Mary, reproductive relative to Mary, and in her mind did she believe God reproduced a Son within her? Relative to that, just what did take place?

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. NKJV Matt.1:20

Did Spirit the God conceive (produce?) in the womb/seed of the woman the Holy One?

“But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, Acts 3:14

 

[The Biblicist]

I think I agree with you concerning the angels. However I would like to ask concerning spirit.

Was Jesus born of the virgin Mary, reproductive relative to Mary, and in her mind did she believe God reproduced a Son within her? Relative to that, just what did take place?

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. NKJV Matt.1:20

Did Spirit the God conceive (produce?) in the womb/seed of the woman the Holy One?

“But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, Acts 3:14

I believe that the Holy Spirit created the male sperm void of the principle of corruption and joined it with the female egg while the spirit of God the Son took up residence in that joint sperm and egg human being.

 

[percho]

I believe that the Holy Spirit created the male sperm void of the principle of corruption and joined it with the female egg while the spirit of God the Son took up residence in that joint sperm and egg human being.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[percho]

I believe that the Holy Spirit created the male sperm void of the principle of corruption and joined it with the female egg while the spirit of God the Son took up residence in that joint sperm and egg human being.

I meant to ask you being I know, no Greek.

Why is spirit and holy there separated by, "is"?

Does, "is Holy," refer to Spirit or to, "that which," is conceived in her, which refers to Jesus Christ of verse 18?

Thanks in advance.

 

[The Biblicist]

I meant to ask you being I know, no Greek.

Why is spirit and holy there separated by, "is"?

Does, "is Holy," refer to Spirit or to, "that which," is conceived in her, which refers to Jesus Christ of verse 18?

Thanks in advance.

In Greek it is not the word order that counts but the word agreement in case, number and gender. However, since the participle translated "conceived" is also neuter genitive and the words translated "holy" and "Spirit" are also neuter genitive it could be translated "conceived from Spirit is holy" and thus "holy" having reference to that which is conceived - Jesus.

 

[percho]

In Greek it is not the word order that counts but the word agreement in case, number and gender. However, since the participle translated "conceived" is also neuter genitive and the words translated "holy" and "Spirit" are also neuter genitive it could be translated "conceived from Spirit is holy" and thus "holy" having reference to that which is conceived - Jesus.

Thanks, that is the reason I added the verse from Acts 3, because I believe it is speaking of Jesus, rather than, the Holy Spirit.

Jesus speaks of, the, his, Father in John 4:24 as Spirit the God, "is," isn't in that verse and I believe Matt 1:20 has the same concept with the One being born, as the Holy One.

But as I said, I know, no Greek so I had to ask.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks, that is the reason I added the verse from Acts 3, because I believe it is speaking of Jesus, rather than, the Holy Spirit.

Jesus speaks of, the, his, Father in John 4:24 as Spirit the God, "is," isn't in that verse and I believe Matt 1:20 has the same concept with the One being born, as the Holy One.

But as I said, I know, no Greek so I had to ask.

The prepositional phrase "in spirit" in John 4:24 necessarily includes the Holy Spirit as it is impossible to worship "in spirit" apart from our spiritual union with the Spirit of God as what is born of Spirit is spirit (Jn. 3:6). Worship cannot be rendered acceptable in those without the Spirit of God as they are "none of his" (Rom. 8:9).

 

[percho]

The prepositional phrase "in spirit" in John 4:24 necessarily includes the Holy Spirit as it is impossible to worship "in spirit" apart from our spiritual union with the Spirit of God as what is born of Spirit is spirit (Jn. 3:6). Worship cannot be rendered acceptable in those without the Spirit of God as they are "none of his" (Rom. 8:9).

I am speaking of at the end of verse 23 transitioning into verse 24.

γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν πνεῦμα ὁ θεός

Is the Greek there calling the Father of Jesus, Spirit the God or is it trying to convey, that the Father of Jesus, God, is a Spirit or is Spirit?

Which would be the more correct and which would be more correct relative to Matthew 1:20, relative to, from whom that which was in Mary was being generated especially considering if Holy was relative to the Christ rather than Spirit.