Is There a Contradiction?

[fastfredy0]

Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?

If death is defined as "separation" then it is a form of death.
My body is constantly changing. I suppose that is a from of death to some degree too.

Cor 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ... since the bible refer to death as "sleep" at time then I might say some get a new body and yet it is not defined as death. Oh, as a read more is see you referred to Cor 15:50

.... in conclusion, I don't know

Do you think it is wise to base sound doctrine on the exceptions to the rule?

No

Or is it wisest to base sound doctrine on whole scripture read as written and considered in its entirety?

I find that if you get to deeply into the weeds then you can find issues.
Because you are so smart and inquisitive, you find more issues than most of us. *giggle*
To a degree, the more you study the more unanswered questions you end up with.

 

[Eleanor]

Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?

Human death is the separation of the human spirit from the human body.

1 Corinthians 15:36-38
That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

1 Thessalonians 4:17
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Those who are alive when he returns will be alive in this corruptible, mortal body of flesh, and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?


Do you think it is wise to base sound doctrine on the exceptions to the rule? Is it the few exceptions that define the majority texts, or the majority that determines the minority? Do you think it is wise to base sound doctrine on doctrinal interpretations of God's word? Or is it wisest to base sound doctrine on whole scripture read as written and considered in its entirety?

 

[Eleanor]

Not according to the Hebrews 9:27 where it is appointed unto men ONCE to die. Even when Jesus returns in our future. You are trusting in something that was never promised to you.

And Enoch and Elijah?

 

[Josheb]

Human death is the separation of the human spirit from the human body.

That is not an answer to my question. If you are not going to answer the question asked, then silence (no response at all) is sufficient and much more beneficial for the whole thread.

Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?



.

 

[Eleanor]

That is not an answer to my question. If you are not going to answer the question asked, then silence (no response at all) is sufficient and much more beneficial for the whole thread.

Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?

First of all, the immortal (no death) spiritual (sinless) body is physical, it is not non-material.

Its change is a form of death only if the human spirit is separated from the human body.
Otherwise it is a transformation (metamorphoo), as in the caterpillar to the butterfly.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And Enoch and Elijah?

Forget about Elijah. Elijah, as the LXX says, "was taken AS IT WERE into heaven" - not that he was ever translated and ascended into God's presence in heaven. That is impossible, according to John 3:13. ("No man hath ascended into heaven...")

Elijah was simply transported by the whirlwind into the skies (rather like Philip the evangelist), to be taken to another location on earth where he wrote that letter to King Jehoram about ten years later (2 Chron. 21:12-15). Elijah died just as any mortal man.

Enoch is the sole, unique individual who ALONE was granted a translation change of his body so that he did not see death. And as I have noted earlier, Enoch was used by God to become the individual titled "Melchizedek". This one man I believe was used to establish the superior, deathless priesthood order of Melchizedek, of which Christ became our Great High Priest after this superior order.

Nobody besides Enoch / Melchizedek was ever promised a translation change of their body without having to pass through physical death. All are "In Adam", and thus, "In Adam, all die", just as Hebrews 9:27 stipulates the one-time death appointment for all men before judgment.

 

[Josheb]

If death is defined as "separation" then it is a form of death.

I agree.

But why would we defined death that way? Are there any other wholly-scriptural definitions of death that would also answer the question asked in the affirmative? If so, then what are they?

My both is constantly changing. I suppose that is a from of death to some degree too.

Cor 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ... since the bible refer to death as "sleep" at time then I might say some get a new body and yet it is not defined as death. Oh, as a read more is see you referred to Cor 15:50

.... in conclusion, I don't know



No



I find that if you get to deeply into the weeds then you can find issues.
Because you are so smart and inquisitive, you find more issues than most of us. *giggle*
To a degree, the more you study the more unanswered questions you end up with.

Well, the fact of scripture is that scripture uses the word "death" and the concept of "dead" quite diversely. That shouldn't be a point of dispute for anyone here, but I can, if asked, expound on that further with LOTS of scripture. Some here implicitly define death singularly (maybe some did so explicitly). Given the diversity of scripture's revelation of death that is a mistake, imo. It is, apparently, assumed that a person already dead in Christ does not physically die even though Paul stated quite bluntly the body of corruptible mortal flesh is done away with. Are we to believe Enoch is walking around in a body of flesh and blood that cannot inherit the kingdom of God rather than a resurrected body of flesh and bone like the one Jesus had when he walked through walls with gaping holes in it? I find that immensely inconsistent with the whole of scripture, and it's due solely to various selective uses of scripture and the emphasis of one definition of death over another.

Btw, 1 Corinthians 15:51 is defined as death. In speaking of the resurrection as a whole (not the resurrection of those buried in the dirt only) Paul explicitly stated that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies. Everything he wrote thereafter occurs within that context, including verse 51. We won't all "sleep" (be dead in the ground) but we will all be changed (it does not come to life unless it dies). Until the moment of resurrection we ALL remain corruptible and mortal - even though we have ALL been crucified with Christ and no longer live. To be dead to sin is to be dead in Christ. The once dead-in-sin Christian who is NOW dead in Christ will still be changed yet again. It is only through the process of transformative resurrection that our salvation from sin and death is made complete. Paul was already dead in Christ when he said that which is sown does not come to life unless it dies. The entire 1 Corinthians 15 narrative is couched in the falsehood some were teaching: the resurrection had already occurred.

2 Timothy 2:16-18
But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.

Those raised in Christ will be raised in Christ. The perishable must put on the imperishable. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Unless that which is sown* does not come to life unless it dies. Therefore, Enoch did die, and he died in multiple ways, but he wasn't first buried in the ground. It's not complicated when the whole of scripture is considered.

No getting deep in the weeds needed .








* Now, we might parse out the "sown" aspect because I don't think Paul is referring to Christological sowing, hamartiological sowing, or an eschatological sowing. Each of those perspective creates conflict for the passage. The first time any of us were "sown" is Genesis 1. That is where God first planted humanity (and those who would inherit His kingdom).
.

 

[Josheb]

New bodies . Not dying mankind's corrupted flesh and blood. . it could never enter in the new heavens and earth.

What we are is far from what we will be.

Yes or no?

 

[Josheb]

First of all, the immortal (no death) spiritual (sinless) body is physical, it is not non-material.

Its change is a form of death only if the human spirit is separated from the human body.
Otherwise it is a transformation (metamorphoo), as in the caterpillar to the butterfly.

It is a yes or no question. Last time I will ask:


Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?


Think about it in light of whole scripture. Take your time. I gotta go.

 

[Eleanor]

Forget about Elijah. Elijah, as the LXX says, "was taken AS IT WERE into heaven" - not that he was ever translated and ascended into God's presence in heaven. That is impossible, according to John 3:13. ("No man hath ascended into heaven...")

Elijah was simply transported by the whirlwind into the skies (rather like Philip the evangelist), to be taken to another location on earth where he wrote that letter to King Jehoram about ten years later (2 Chron. 21:12-15). Elijah died just as any mortal man.

Enoch is the sole, unique individual who ALONE was granted a translation change of his body so that he did not see death.

And yet, "it is appointed unto men ONCE to die."

Enoch didn't die, and neither do those who are alive at the second coming and the resurrection at the end of time.

And as I have noted earlier, Enoch was used by God to become the individual titled "Melchizedek". This one man I believe was used to establish the superior, deathless priesthood order of Melchizedek, of which Christ became our Great High Priest after this superior order.

Nobody besides Enoch / Melchizedek was ever promised a translation change of their body without having to pass through physical death. All are "In Adam", and thus, "In Adam, all die", just as Hebrews 9:27 stipulates the one-time death appointment for all men before judgment.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Therefore, Enoch did die,

Not physically, according to Hebrews 11:5. The lone exception to all mankind that God chose to be translated for a particular purpose.

Enoch was only mentioned in that listing of saints who died because he shared a faith just like theirs - not a physical death experience.

 

[Eleanor]

It is a yes or no question. Last time I will ask:


Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?
Think about it in light of whole scripture. Take your time. I gotta go.

I do not see the NT as presenting it as death, as in the human spirit departing the human body.
Rather it is described as a change of the body. . .in the twinkling of an eye.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Enoch didn't die, and neither do those who are alive at the second coming and the resurrection at the end of time.

I agree Enoch didn't physically die, but this one translation change of Enoch was a single unique occurrence in all of human history. Nobody alive at Christ next coming will survive His appearing. After all, scripture says nobody can look on God's face and live through the experience. The human body must pass first through death and then be changed in the resurrection process before they can view God's face without perishing.

 

[Eleanor]

I agree Enoch didn't physically die, but this one translation change of Enoch was a single unique occurrence in all of human history.
Nobody alive at Christ next coming will survive His appearing. After all, scripture says nobody can look on God's face and live through the experience. The human body must pass first through death and then be changed in the resurrection process before they can view God's face without perishing.

Authoritative NT teaching disagrees with you (1 Th 4:16-17).

 

[3 Resurrections]

Authoritative NT teaching disagrees with you (1 Th 4:16-17).

There is absolutely no mention whatever of a translation type of change like Enoch's taking place in that text.

You are mistaking who those "alive" saints who "remained" actually were. They were called "alive' because they had been made alive by the resurrection process (like Dorcas who was presented "alive" to her friends after Peter raised her from the dead, and like the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who were raised from the dead in AD 33 that same day as Christ). These all "remained" in a reserved status on earth in those days of the early church, waiting for Christ's next coming return to be taken to heaven together with the rest of the newly-resurrected saints.

The deathless, translated Enoch / Melchizedek was one of those who was "alive" and who had "remained" on earth. Hebrews 7:8 tells us that Melchizedek was still alive on earth in those days when Hebrews was being written.

 

[Arial]

Is there a contradiction between these two verses?

Hebrews 9:27 BLB
And inasmuch as it is apportioned to men to die once, and after this, judgment, 28 so also Christ, having been offered once in order to bear the sins of many, will appear for a second time, apart from sin, to those awaiting Him for salvation.

I think this is saying that men only die once and are judged, once, at that death.

In which case, the apparent contradiction would be in Rev where it speaks of the second death. Maybe that should be addressed, without changing the conversation to end times eschatology. As is stated in the rule #3, to all who may be tempted to do so, keep posts relevant to the OP inquiry. Not all threads are about end times.

Hebrews 11:5 BLB
By faith Enoch was translated not to see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him up. For before the translation, he was commended to have pleased God.

If the above is the case regarding 9:27, then there is no contradiction in the two passages.

 

[Eleanor]

Authoritative NT teaching disagrees with you (1 Th 4:16-17).I agree Enoch didn't physically die, but this one translation change of Enoch was a single unique occurrence in all of human history. Nobody alive at Christ next coming will survive His appearing. After all, scripture says nobody can look on God's face and live through the experience. The human body must pass first through death and then be changed in the resurrection process before they can view God's face without perishing.

There is only one resurrection, not three, in authoritative NT teaching; i.e., 1 Co 15:51-52, 1 Th 4:16-17.

All other "resurrections" are derived from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8), which personal interpretations are in disagreement with the authoritative NT teaching of 1 Co 15:51-52, 1 Th 4:16-17.

There is absolutely no mention whatever of a translation type of change like Enoch's taking place in that text.

So sinful bodies and sinful natures will be caught up to meet Christ in the air. . .

Is that the only NT text regarding the resurrection?

You are mistaking who those "alive" saints who "remained" actually were. They were called "alive' because they had been made alive by the resurrection process

They are called the "we the remaining living (ones); i.e., those who are still living in natural bodies when Christ returns (1 Th 4:17).

Jesus said he would return soon (Rev 22:12), and the early church, including the apostles, thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes.
When some of them died in the meantime, they were grieving (1 Th 4:13) about those deceased missing the second coming.
Paul is writing to comfort them with the facts of the second coming, that
those still living at Christ's coming would not be taken up before those in their graves (1 Th 4:15),
that Christ would come down from heaven,
the dead would rise first, imperishable (1 Co 15:51-52),
those still living will be changed (made imperishable) in the twinkling of an eye (1 Co 15:51-52) and
then would be caught up together in the clouds with the changed resurrected to meet the Lord in the air (rapture).

"We (those alive when Jesus comes) will not all sleep (die), but we will all be changed--in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

(like Dorcas who was presented "alive" to her friends after Peter raised her from the dead, and like the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who were raised from the dead in AD 33 that same day as Christ). These all "remained" in a reserved status on earth in those days of the early church, waiting for Christ's next coming return to be taken to heaven together with the rest of the newly-resurrected saints.

So they are still living, waiting for Christ's second coming?

The deathless, translated Enoch / Melchizedek was one of those who was "alive" and who had "remained" on earth. Hebrews 7:8 tells us that Melchizedek was still alive on earth in those days when Hebrews was being written.

In his defense of Moses, God told Miriam that he gave prophecy in riddles to all prophets but Moses (Nu 12:8).

You have garbled authoritative NT teaching in favor of your personal interpretation of those prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8).

 

[CherubRam]

Is there a contradiction between these two verses?

Hebrews 9:27 BLB
And inasmuch as it is apportioned to men to die once, and after this, judgment, 28 so also Christ, having been offered once in order to bear the sins of many, will appear for a second time, apart from sin, to those awaiting Him for salvation.

Hebrews 11:5 BLB
By faith Enoch was translated not to see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him up. For before the translation, he was commended to have pleased God.


The first verse states men is apportioned to die once but the second states Enoch did not see death. And if not, then how are these two verses reconciled so as not to contradict one another? Scripture elsewhere implies resurrection (in Christ) is the means of transformation unto eternal life. Jesus, who is the resurrection and the life without whom no one can reach the Father or have eternal life, and resurrection implies a receding death (if there is no death then from what might that person be raised or resurrected and thereby transformed into immortality or eternal life?). Assuming Enoch believed in Christ, how is it he was able to be translated (transformed?) without the apportioned death and judgment of Hebrews 9:27, and then be raised from that death (ala 1 Corinthians 15:36)?

A exception has been occasionally made by God.

 

[Mr GLee]

It is a yes or no question. Last time I will ask:


Do you think your body being changed from a mortal and corruptible body of previously sinful of flesh into an incorruptible and immortal spiritual body is a form of death?


Think about it in light of whole scripture. Take your time. I gotta go.

You are describing death to life.

Replaced bodies no remnant of old . Not changed. New spirit. The old body returns to dust.

What do you mean by spiritual body?