Was Man Created Mortal?

[DHK]

HP: 2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
18 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.

In verse 18, "we look not at the the things..." is an aim of Paul; not an absolute. It is Paul's goal; not a stated absolute by God. His goal is not to look at the things which are seen but at the things which are unseen. That is to set your affections above and not on the things that are below. Concentrate on the spiritual and not the materialistic. That ought to be one of the goals of our lives.

And then he continues to say: "for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." This again is the reason for the stated goal above. It doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to it. It is not an absolute. Think about it.
The things that are seen are temporal. What things do I not see?
In the conext he was speaking of pain. I can't see pain; but I can feel its effects. Pain is unseen. Is it therefore eternal and not temporal. I hope not.
I can't see electricity. I can only see its effects.
I can't see the wind (an example Jesus used); I can only see its effects.
I can't see the Holy Spirit either; but i can see the effects of the work of the Holy Spirit, and this is the one case of the above examples where that which is unseen is eternal. The rest of the "unseen" are only temporal. Your theory thus does not work. Paul was giving an example. It wasn't an absolute statement about spiritual things.

I can appreciate the effort DHK, but it speaking directly to the flesh that will perish, the outward man as opposed to the inner man. It is speaking of that which will perish, i.e., all things seen, as opposed to the things which will not perish, the things which are eternal and as such not seen.

See above. Pain is unseen. It is directly related to the flesh. It will perish. The goal of man (beleivers) is to look to the eternal. But not all things eternal are unseen. The statement was not an absolute. It was a saying, so to speak, just as the author of Hebrews said to set your affections on things "above." If I take that too literally perhaps I should stare at the sun at noon each day, and the stars at mid-night and on through the night. Do I just go on staring upward? That was not Paul's meaning. The statement in 2Cor.4:18 was not an absolute statement either. There are many things that are physical and "seen" in heaven, including Jesus Christ himself in his resurrected body. He is seen, has been seen, was seen ascending into heaven, was promised to come again in the same way that he ascended into heaven, and retains that same physical body to this day. One does not need special spiritual eyes to behold him. They didn't when he revealed himself to his disciples after the resurrection.

HP: There is no indication that any of the things John saw were physical. He was simply describing what he saw in physical terms that he knew and could relate to others in this temporal world what he was viewing with his spiritual eyes.

John saw with physical eyes, as God permitted him to. In the last chapter he fell down and was about to worship the angel whom he saw and was with. But the angel stopped him saying, "I also am thy fellow-servant." They could see one another. He beheld all that he described with his own physical eyes. God permitted it to be so. All those physical things are in heaven. You cannot base your belief on a misinterpretation on just one verse. You cannot throw out an entire book on the basis of a misinterpretation of just one verse.
[quoteHP: Guilt by association is not always a proper way of establishing truth or error. It may or may not be the case. If in fact that Gnosticism supports that, in that were they correct and were in agreement with Scripture.[/quote]
Heresy never agrees with Scripture. Please look up and see what gnositicism is. It denied humanity of Christ, and thus the deity of Christ. The gnositcs (meaning knowledge) thought that they were the only ones that had the knowledge.The claimed that their knowledge was secretive. They claimed that it came directly from a mystical source. All flesh was evil (including the body of our Lord) and all that was of the spirit was good.
John seeks to show how Jesus Christ is "good". That is why I quoted you the first two verses of the first chapter--his thesis so to speak. Now go to the end of the book and see how he winds the book up:

1 John 5:11-13 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: In verse 18, "we look not at the the things..." is an aim of Paul; not an absolute. It is Paul's goal; not a stated absolute by God. His goal is not to look at the things which are seen but at the things which are unseen. That is to set your affections above and not on the things that are below. Concentrate on the spiritual and not the materialistic. That ought to be one of the goals of our lives.

HP: I agree that such should be one of our goals, but that in no wise negates the point the author is making, i.e., the things that are seen are temporal, and eternal things cannot be seen with physical eyes. Certainly I could say that I see you and you are going to live eternally, but what will live on will not be what I can see with my physical eyes. That will decay and must be changed in order to inhabit eternity.

DHK: And then he continues to say: "for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." This again is the reason for the stated goal above. It doesn't mean that there are no exceptions to it. It is not an absolute. Think about it.
The things that are seen are temporal. What things do I not see?
In the context he was speaking of pain. I can't see pain; but I can feel its effects. Pain is unseen. Is it therefore eternal and not temporal. I hope not.

HP: Paul neither suggests any such thing nor is such a conclusion logical in the least. Pain IS an effect of a physical cause or a mental state related to a physical world. Pain whether directly physical or a result of mental anguish due to events, attitudes, etc. in this physical world will cease to be painful according to Scripture as we enter the realm of eternity in a spiritual world.

No one has stated or implied, nor has any argument I have made necessitate the idea, that if you cannot see something it must be eternal. That is a ludicrous notion that has no place in our discussion. If that was true, a blind man would not live in a physical world, now would he? Paul was expressing that the physical things that exist in this world will indeed perish, and the things that will exist in eternity are not physical nor can they be. You may be able to see a manifestation of spiritual things with ones physical eyes, but that does not negate the fact that they are not in actuality physical as we know it. Even if they are manifested as physical in some sense, it is but for a temporal moment of time.

DHK: I can't see electricity. I can only see its effects.
I can't see the wind (an example Jesus used); I can only see its effects.
I can't see the Holy Spirit either; but i can see the effects of the work of the Holy Spirit, and this is the one case of the above examples where that which is unseen is eternal. The rest of the "unseen" are only temporal. Your theory thus does not work. Paul was giving an example. It wasn't an absolute statement about spiritual things.

HPHK has suggested that because some things cannot be seen, such as electricity or wind, they must of necessity be eternal if what he terms as ‘my theory’ is correct. Such comments have absolutely no merit. He suggests something that I have neither stated nor in any way is implied by anything I have said. Because there are realities in this world I cannot or have not seen, does not mean they are of necessity eternal in nature. The individual in the next room I may never see, but that does not negate the fact that that unseen body of the individual in the next room is some how eternal because I have not or cannot see it. There are numerous such cases of similar instances or the contemplation of phenomena like the wind that cannot be seen with physical eyes, but can be felt by other physical senses, but in fact are part and parcel to this temporal world and as such are not eternal realities as we know them. That in no way takes away from or negates the truth that I have repeated by the apostle Paul that things which are seen are eternal and the things which are eternal cannot be seen. DHK would try to confuse the listener into believing that if there are things that can be seen ‘in some sense’ that are eternal, or there are some things ‘in some sense that cannot be seen that are temporal, that such negates the clear fact that things which are seen are temporal, and things which are not seen are eternal, and that as an absolute reality. Such conclusions are simply wrong. Let me illustrate.

Angels are spiritual beings. They can manifest themselves in a physical world that can be seen with physical eyes, but that does not negate the fact that they are not physical but spiritual beings. We cannot see them with our physical eyes 'unless' they manifest themselves in physical reality. Just the same, it can be said that such a physical manifestation is indeed temporal although the object itself, in reality, is eternal. Because we can see them in certain instances, does this negate the fact that as spiritual beings they cannot be seen with physical eyes? By no means. Cannot it be stated absolutely that angels are spiritual and as such cannot be seen by physical eyes in that state. Yet in another sense, or in some temporal state, be able to be seen with physical eyes, or at least physical eyes can indeed see the temporal manifestation of an eternal reality that in its normal state could not be seen with physical eyes?

I have no 'theory,' I am simply quoting Scripture. It is DHK that is trying to somehow contort the obvious to obfuscate the truth that everything that we know and see in this physical world as a physical reality will indeed perish with a fervent heat. Anything and everything now seen or realized as physical will have to undergo a change to survive eternally. The physical as we know it is temporal and cannot, according to Scripture, inherit the spiritual world to come.

For DHK to imply that because there are some things that cannot be seen that are indeed physical, and that somehow diminishes the truth the apostle clearly expressed or the statement that I have made, is simply ludicrous. A blind man again would laugh at such nonsense. I have neither suggested or implied that the apostle was suggesting that there are not some things ‘in some sense’ that cannot be seen and yet are physical, or that there are some eternal realities ‘in some sense’ that can be seen to one degree or another by physical eyes, such as the angels manifested in the flesh etc. Just the same, I believe it can be stated as Scripture clearly does, that the physical world with all its effects will indeed cease when the physical world as we know it is dissolved with a fervent heat. Of a truth, it can be said with clarity that the things which are seen are temporal, while the things which cannot be seen are eternal without drawing any of the false implications DHK suggests.