The Heart of the Gospel- The Resurrection

[TibiasDad]

Was Jesus peccable ?

His body was.

Doug

 

[brightfame52]

His body was.

Doug

So you believe Jesus could have sinned?

 

[TibiasDad]

So you believe Jesus could have sinned?

That’s not what I’m talking about! I only refer to the purely physical aspect of his human body. Impeccability in your sense of usage is not my point. Frankly, I can see both sides of the argument for if Jesus could have sinned, and find the more important issue to be that he didn’t sin, not if it was actually possible.

Jesus’s body was not flawless in the sense that it was not subject to death!

Doug

 

[Josheb]

Except that Paul isn't referring to corruption due to sin, but "corruptible" = "perishable" like you said above. It's a reference to mortality, that our physical bodies are mortal, and subject to decay, and death.

No, it is not a reference to mortality. If that were the case then he would be unnecessarily redundant. If that were the case he would be saying "we were sown mortal and mortal, " and "we will be raised immortal and immortal." Paul is not being unnecessarily redundant.

1 Corinthians 15 is a contrast between our current mortal bodies that will decay and die vs our resurrection bodies that will be immortal and never decay.

The problem with that view is the "decay" to which he is alluding is NOT the decay of the grave. It is the decay of sin that had occurred long before physical death. You're on the correct track with "decay," but it is not the decay of the grave. The "sowing" is not being sown into the grave, it is sown into existence. As I noted in the previous post, if Paul's reference was the grave then he'd have used the past-tense and not the infinitive conjugation: corrupted, not corruptible. Corruption is not a possibility in the grave; it is an inevitability (apart from Christ).

Humans were made mortal. The word "immortal" means "not subject to death," or "unable to die." If God made humans immortal, then the command not to eat the forbidden kiwi lest they die would have been meaningless. If they were made immortal, then they could have eaten a zillion kiwis and never died. They were immortal! They were unable to die if made immortal. The command itself is evidence of their inherent mortality. However, physical death is not the same as being dead in sin.

You're also on the right path with "decay" because the Greek term, "phthora," or "phtharton," means "corruption, destruction, decay, rottenness, decomposition" (G5356). We began decaying the moment we were born. Decay does NOT begin in the grave when the already dead physical body buried in dirt. Sin causes corruption, destruction, decay, rottenness, decomposition.

If all Paul was saying is the physical body can no longer die then sin will persist after resurrection. Likewise, if all Paul was saying is that your physical body won't rot or decay after resurrection then you'll be immortal and still able to sin. That isthe exat problem God was addressing when he kicked Adam and Eve out Eden.

Genesis 3:22-24
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"— therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

God did not want the sinful Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life still in the sinfully dead and enslaved state and live sinfully immortal (or immortally sinful).


Paul is not being unnecessarily redundant. Paul is not alluding to the decay in the grave. Paul is not limiting his commentary to the decay of the physical body.

 

[Eleanor]

Where in 1 Corinthians 15 does it say "flesh" = the sinful nature?

It is Paul's usage throughout:
weaker element of human nature (Ro 6:19, 8:3a, Mt 26:41),
unregenerate man (Ro 5:7, 8:8, 9),
lower and temporary element in the Christian (Gal 3:3, 6:8),
contrasted with spirit (Ro 2:28, 29, 7:25, 2 Co 5:16, Col 2:18),
carnal; i.e., sinful element in man's nature (Ro 15:27, 1 Co 9:11)
lusts (2 Co 10:4),
fleshly (carnal) opposed to spiritual (R 7:14, 1 Co 3:1, 3, 4, 2 Co 1:12, Col 2:18).

 

[brightfame52]

That’s not what I’m talking about! I only refer to the purely physical aspect of his human body. Impeccability in your sense of usage is not my point. Frankly, I can see both sides of the argument for if Jesus could have sinned, and find the more important issue to be that he didn’t sin, not if it was actually possible.

Jesus’s body was not flawless in the sense that it was not subject to death!

Doug

Peccable means:

1. liable to sin or error.

 

[TB2]

No, it is not a reference to mortality. If that were the case then he would be unnecessarily redundant. If that were the case he would be saying "we were sown mortal and mortal, " and "we will be raised immortal and immortal." Paul is not being unnecessarily redundant.

The problem with that view is the "decay" to which he is alluding is NOT the decay of the grave. It is the decay of sin that had occurred long before physical death. You're on the correct track with "decay," but it is not the decay of the grave. The "sowing" is not being sown into the grave, it is sown into existence. As I noted in the previous post, if Paul's reference was the grave then he'd have used the past-tense and not the infinitive conjugation: corrupted, not corruptible. Corruption is not a possibility in the grave; it is an inevitability (apart from Christ).

Humans were made mortal. The word "immortal" means "not subject to death," or "unable to die." If God made humans immortal, then the command not to eat the forbidden kiwi lest they die would have been meaningless. If they were made immortal, then they could have eaten a zillion kiwis and never died. They were immortal! They were unable to die if made immortal. The command itself is evidence of their inherent mortality. However, physical death is not the same as being dead in sin.

You're also on the right path with "decay" because the Greek term, "phthora," or "phtharton," means "corruption, destruction, decay, rottenness, decomposition" (G5356). We began decaying the moment we were born. Decay does NOT begin in the grave when the already dead physical body buried in dirt. Sin causes corruption, destruction, decay, rottenness, decomposition.

If all Paul was saying is the physical body can no longer die then sin will persist after resurrection. Likewise, if all Paul was saying is that your physical body won't rot or decay after resurrection then you'll be immortal and still able to sin. That isthe exat problem God was addressing when he kicked Adam and Eve out Eden.

Genesis 3:22-24
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"— therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

God did not want the sinful Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life still in the sinfully dead and enslaved state and live sinfully immortal (or immortally sinful).


Paul is not being unnecessarily redundant. Paul is not alluding to the decay in the grave. Paul is not limiting his commentary to the decay of the physical body.

The difficult (and bottom line problem for the view you are espousing) is that nowhere in the passage in question (1 Corinthians 15) does Paul equate "flesh" = sinful. Not only that, in 1 Corinthians 15 there are different kinds of "flesh" and God is the one who creates them. So, if we adopt your view, that would mean God is the one who created the sinful "flesh/body."

*But we can agree to disagree. More concerning is what Paul means by the "spiritual body." "Spiritual" means something very different today than it did then, and so a lot of people misunderstand and think Paul is saying our resurrection body will be a nonphysical, noncoporeal body. This would be a 'grave' error (pun intended) since in ancient times *anastasia* (resurrection) = bodily, corporeal resurrection by definition to Christians, Jews, and pagans alike. As long as we're at least on the same page about that, I'm good and can agree to disagree on the other.

 

[TibiasDad]

Peccable means:

1. liable to sin or error.

In a theological sense of absolute perfection. I mean its lesser sense of being susceptible to physical pain and decay. It is not immortal. I will try to use a different word to avoid confusion.


Doug

 

[brightfame52]

In a theological sense of absolute perfection. I mean its lesser sense of being susceptible to physical pain and decay. It is not immortal. I will try to use a different word to avoid confusion.


Doug

So now you know what I mean by peccable and the definition I gave:

1. liable to sin or error.

Was Jesus peccable ?

 

[Josheb]

The difficult (and bottom line problem for the view you are espousing) is that nowhere in the passage in question (1 Corinthians 15) does Paul equate "flesh" = sinful.

Is it being suggested the flesh is not sinful?

Is there an example anywhere in scripture other than the predisobedient Adam and the incarnate Jesus of sinless flesh? If so please specifiy. If not, then the dissent has no standing because the only possible context for everything he wrote is sinful and only-sinful flesh.

Not only that, in 1 Corinthians 15 there are different kinds of "flesh" and God is the one who creates them.

Not for humans living on this side of the grave.

So, if we adopt your view, that would mean God is the one who created the sinful "flesh/body."

No, we would not. I explicitly stated sin, or the act of disobedience is the changing condition. I have explained ho Adam was good, unashamed and sinless prior to Genesis 3:6 and how all who sin are dead in sin, even though physically they still walk around breathiing air and pumping blood. What I posted does NOT mean God created sinful flesh and if that's what was understood then go back and re-ead the posts as many times as it takes to correctly understand them because that is NOT what was posted.

*But we can agree to disagree.

We could if a rational dissent was provided. There's no agreement of any kind with fiction. Reading content I never wrote into what Is posted is fiction.

More concerning is what Paul means by the "spiritual body." "Spiritual" means something very different today than it did then

Assuming non sequiturs not in evidence.

, and so a lot of people misunderstand and think Paul is saying our resurrection body will be a nonphysical, noncoporeal body. This would be a 'grave' error (pun intended) since in ancient times *anastasia* (resurrection) = bodily, corporeal resurrection by definition to Christians, Jews, and pagans alike. As long as we're at least on the same page about that, I'm good and can agree to disagree on the other.

The resurrection is a bodily resurrection. There is a one-to-one correlation between the body buried and the body raised.

 

[TB2]

Like I said, we can agree to disagree. 1 Corinthians 15 is a very difficult passage to understand. Disagreement over the meaning of "flesh" in 1 Cor. 15 is not going to make or break us salvation wise.

We could if a rational dissent was provided

However, saying I haven't provided a "rational dissent" for you to disagree with is unfair to both me, and the scholars who I base my view on.

No, we would not. I explicitly stated sin, or the act of disobedience is the changing condition. I have explained ho Adam was good, unashamed and sinless prior to Genesis 3:6 and how all who sin are dead in sin, even though physically they still walk around breathiing air and pumping blood. What I posted does NOT mean God created sinful flesh and if that's what was understood then go back and re-ead the posts as many times as it takes to correctly understand them because that is NOT what was posted.

There's no agreement of any kind with fiction. Reading content I never wrote into what Is posted is fiction

I know you didn't say it. I never said *you* said God created sinful flesh. You said "flesh" = sinful, correct? I merely pointed out that in 1 Cor 15, God *is* the one who creates the different types of flesh. And God would not create a "sinful flesh" (I agree with you). Ergo, "flesh" in 1 Cor 15--the flesh that God creates---can't mean "sinful" in this passage.

Is it being suggested the flesh is not sinful?

Is there an example anywhere in scripture other than the predisobedient Adam and the incarnate Jesus of sinless flesh? If so please specifiy. If not, then the dissent has no standing because the only possible context for everything he wrote is sinful and only-sinful flesh.

Yes, there is an example in Scripture of Paul using "flesh" in a way that doesn't mean "sinful," and it's the passage (1 Cor 15) that we're talking about (!). You're assuming that a person can never use the same word to mean different things in different contexts. We, ourselves, use "flesh" to mean different things. We use "flesh" to refer to the carnal, sinful nature. But we also use "flesh" to mean the "flesh" of an animal. And Paul does too. Only context can tell which use is intended.

So, let's look at the context. What is 1 Cor 15.35-58 all about? The whole point, according to Paul, is to answer the following question: "How are the dead raised? With what kind of *body* do they come?" (v 35). So, right from the beginning the focus is on the type of body (soma) that we have when resurrected. Then throughout this entire passage of twenty-three verses, do you know how many times Paul mentions "flesh" (sarx)? Two (ESV). Paul only mentions "flesh" (sarx) two times in these twenty-three verses. In contrast, Paul uses body (soma) about twelve different times. That is the first mistake in this entire discussion: it's focusing on the wrong thing. The focus of this passage is the body (soma), not the flesh. The focus of this passage on the difference between the resurrection body and the non-resurrection body.

Reference 1:

"37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

Here we see the entire focus (and context) of the passage is on the body (soma). God gives a body to a bare kernel (perhaps wheat or some other grain) as he decides, and gives each kind of seed its own body. Similarly, not all flesh is the same. In context, Paul is continuing his point that just as each seed has its own type of body, so also the same is true of humans, and animals, and birds, and fish. As a continuation of Paul's thought, the context requires that "flesh" = "body" in this first reference. Otherwise, the thought is disconnected and doesn't make sense. Just as God gives each kind of seed its own body as God chooses, so also God gives humans, animals, birds, and fish their own type of body, too. This is supported by what follows. Paul continues his contrast between different types of bodies with a third example: heavenly bodies and earthly bodies.

It is unmistakable: this passage is about the BODY, and how the resurrection body is different from the non-resurrection body. This passage is NOT about the "flesh"; it's about the BODY. That is the entire context. Paul makes it expressly clear (in v 35) that he is answering the question regarding what type of body the resurrection body is. In this first reference, Paul is setting the stage, and laying the groundwork for his argument. Just prior to his first use of "flesh" he states that God gives each kind of seed its own body, and just after he talks about the different kind of celestial body: contrasting heavenly body and earthly body. And in between he talks about how there are different kinds of "flesh." Humans have one type, animals a different type, birds a different type, and fish a different type. How on earth could "flesh" = "sinful" in this context [bracketed as it is by verses on both sides] with all this talk about different types of bodies? Clearly, when Paul says "flesh" he is referring to the physical body kind of "flesh." That's the only thing that makes sense in context. Clearly Paul means physical "flesh" when he speaks of the different flesh of animals, and birds, and fish. But to insist that "flesh" means physical body for animals, birds, and fish, but then suddenly doesn't for humans, but instead means "sinful," is so far out of context that it doesn't make any sense.

Your argument is based on how Paul uses "flesh" elsewhere, and comparisons like that certainly have their place. But when the context so clearly establishes that the entire passage is about the body (soma), then the immediate context trumps any usage of the word outside of that context. Again, you are insisting that Paul can't use the same word to mean two different things in different context, when we do it all the time, even with the word in question ("flesh").

 

[TB2]

Reference 2:

"50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell 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 trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

The second reference to "flesh" is even more clear: "flesh and blood," which is an idiom for the physical body (!). Similar to how Jesus gives us his "flesh and blood"; and how in John 6 Jesus talks about the bread of life and "eating [his] flesh"; and how in John 1.14 "the Word became flesh." And it's not just Jesus, in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, Peter quotes the fulfillment of Joel 2 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh." In context, "flesh" = physical body in all these verses. There is no hint of theological overtones of sin. Is "flesh" often used to refer to the carnal, sinful nature? Of course. But there are also many times where "flesh" simply means actual, physical "flesh." That is, in fact, the literal meaning of "flesh," so why would you find it odd that sometimes the word "flesh" is used to mean what the word "flesh" actually, literally means? And again, the fact that our second of two references to "flesh" in this passage is with "blood"---"flesh and blood"---which is an idiom for the physical body that even we, ourselves, use today---makes it unmistakable that the body is meant; which matches the entire context of this passage, which is, in fact, all about the body. "Sinful and blood" doesn't even make sense.

We could continue on and now look at how Paul contrasts the resurrection body with the non-resurrection body, and see Paul's emphasis on the mortal body vs the immortal. We see this in the second reference above (v. 53-54). But I think that would be overkill at this point.

*IN SUM:This passage is first and foremost about the body, and how the resurrection body is different from the non-resurrection body. "Body" is used about twelve times. "Flesh" is used twice in the context of a passage that is expressly about what the resurrection body is like. By contrast, you are trying to insist that the two references to "flesh" cannot be a reference to what the word "flesh" literally means: the "flesh/meat" of the physical body in a passage that is expressly about the body. The BODY (soma) is literally the main subject of this passage. You have an uphill battle.

 

[TibiasDad]

So now you know what I mean by peccable and the definition I gave:

1. liable to sin or error.

Was Jesus peccable ?

Like I said before, I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end, it is merely an academic question, for the important thing is that Jesus did not sin, and thus became the perfect sacrifice for sin. If he didn’t sin, then the “could he have sinned” question is irrelevant.

Doug

 

[Eleanor]

Like I said before, I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end, it is merely an academic question, for the important thing is that Jesus did not sin, and thus became the perfect sacrifice for sin. If he didn’t sin, then the “could he have sinned” question is irrelevant.

He could have sinned, as could Adam, and he was tempted and tried as was Adam, passing his trial as Adam failed his and, thereby, qualifying as the righteous sacrifice absolving our sin.

 

[brightfame52]

Like I said before, I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end, it is merely an academic question, for the important thing is that Jesus did not sin, and thus became the perfect sacrifice for sin. If he didn’t sin, then the “could he have sinned” question is irrelevant.

Doug

Its not Irrelevant, you probably believe He could have sinned but fearful to say it. Anybody can say they see both sides of the question, I see both sides, however I say NO He could not have sinned, not the faint possibility and thats my conviction !

 

[brightfame52]

Another Blessing of the Resurrection of Christ, for He rose not as a private person, but as a Representative Head of His Body the Church, and Mystically when He rose from the dead, having died under the awesome weight of their sins, they together with Him, rose from the dead, which guarantees their quickening Eph 2:5-6

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Each person represented in His Mystical Body will experience the power of His Resurrection, because it was theirs as well Phil 3:10

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
This same power causes each member of that mystical body to believe Eph 1:19-20
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

The resurrection of Christ had a vital role in bringing sinners to believe in Christ, sinners He died for that He represented, mainly them chosen in Him before the foundation Eph 1:4

 

[EarlyActs]

Without the bodily resurrection which was permanent one has no Savior and you are still dead in your sins according to the Apostle Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:17

Many deny Jesus was Resurrected and Ascended into heaven bodily( a human body with real flesh and bones) and are still dead in their sins even though they might claim to be a christian. That is an oxymoron.

Luke 24:37-43
37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them.

John 20:24-25
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."

John 20:27-28
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1Timothy 2:5) post ascension.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.(Hebrews 13:5) Changeless, Immutable. Jesus was a man when He walked this earth, when He Ascended and when He will return again at His 2nd Coming.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

1 Corinthians 15:14-18
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

2 Corinthians 5:1-10
For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. 4 While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it's not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. 5 God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit.6 So we are always confident, even though we know that as long as we live in these bodies we are not at home with the Lord. 7 For we live by believing and not by seeing. 8 Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are here in this body or away from this body, our goal is to please him.


In Heaven.... Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Look up the meaning of the word soma below, it always means a physical body in relation to anthropos(man).

His Body.....Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Matthew 27:52-53
52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Philippians 3:20-21
And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

1 Corinthians 15:44-45
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Christ be not risen your faith is in vain and you are still dead in your sins- an unbeliever who is lost. Those who deny the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus such as the JW's who teach that Jesus is now a spirit based being fit into this camp. They deny the resurrection.

If we look at what Paul is saying in this passage, it is that corruptible flesh and blood shall not enter the kingdom. Paul says corruptible does not inherit the incorruptible. Paul is not saying the resurrection body will not have flesh but what he declares is that the resurrected body will not have perishable flesh. Remember in Luke Jesus said see here My hands and feet, touch Me a spirit/ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. Peter, Paul and John all agree that Jesus still had flesh well after His ascension. 1 John being the last of the books of the three Apostles declared that Jesus having come in the flesh and those who deny this are the spirit of antichrist. John makes it clear that the Incarnation was permanent. Jesus is forever both God and man. This is what Paul teaches in the whole 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians. The glorious physical bodies that we will have in the resurrection. We will have incorruptible bodies just as Jesus now has in heaven.

To TB2
So I’m just curious. Why would you care about physical manifestation here but deny it to Genesis ?

 

[EarlyActs]

The resurrection is the Davidic enthronement of Christ, say Acts 2-4. This does not mean that you see an external kingdom but that he now deserves to be honored. ‘Pay homage to the Son, lest he be angered.’ This is a part of our message to rulers and the least alike.

 

[Josheb]

Like I said, we can agree to disagree. 1 Corinthians 15 is a very difficult passage to understand.

I disagree.

I will agree the word "flesh" is used diversely in scripture. So too are the words, "death," and "life."

I know you didn't say it. I never said *you* said God created sinful flesh. You said "flesh" = sinful, correct? I merely pointed out that in 1 Cor 15, God *is* the one who creates the different types of flesh. And God would not create a "sinful flesh" (I agree with you). Ergo, "flesh" in 1 Cor 15--the flesh that God creates---can't mean "sinful" in this passage.

This may be where the breakdown in exegesis and logic exists because God created the flesh Paul is referencing, but God did not create all types of flesh. Paul states there are different types of flesh and then cites a few examples (beasts, birds, flesh), none of which is human (or sinful). But Paul is not exhaustive, nor does he claim God made all types of flesh. The only other time Paul mentions "flesh" in that entire chapter is to say flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The would certainly prevent the incarnate Christ from entering his own kingdom if that is taken as written .

The answer lies in the resurrection.

Adam and Eve were made in the flesh but if 1 Cor. 15:50 is taken as written then even in their good and sinless state they could not enter the Kingdom of God (KoG)! Flesh and blood cannot enter the KoG. The transformed body can, though.

Back to your point, God did not make sinful flesh. God made good and sinless flesh. Humans made not-good and sinful flesh. There's no sin allowed in the resurrected KoG. The resurrection raises us incorruptible.

Yes, there is an example in Scripture of Paul using "flesh" in a way that doesn't mean "sinful," and it's the passage (1 Cor 15) that we're talking about (!). You're assuming that a person can never use the same word to mean different things in different contexts. We, ourselves, use "flesh" to mean different things. We use "flesh" to refer to the carnal, sinful nature.

Speak for yourself. I do not use the term that way and you should never have assumed otherwise.

But we also use "flesh" to mean the "flesh" of an animal.

Animals are not humans. Animals do not need Jesus. Red herring of false equivalence. It's worth noting Paul mentioned beasts, birds, and fish..... but he did not mention human flesh. Not once. Beasts, birds, and fish would be examples of flesh that exists irrelevant of spirit/flesh, righteousness/sin and/or good/evil.

Hugely false equivalence being asserted.

Your argument is based on.....

I am going to ask you to stop telling me what My case is based on because you've done this more than once and haven't ever got it correct. Your entire dissent is built on strawmen. It's not evident you have a clue what I have posted.

And the use of 1 Corinthians 15 to prove 1 Corinthians 15 is about sinless flesh begs the question. The text in dispute cannot be used to prove it's veracity.

You're assuming....

Let me encourage and exhort you not to assume you possess the faculties to know what others assume. Let me also encourage you to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. the posts do NOT assume the same word cannot have multiple meanings, and were you not new to the forum you'd know there are numerous examples where I have expounded at length on the diversity of like terms in scripture.

Shed the biases.

Then go back and re-read what was posted objectively because what was imagined is not what was written.



As a sign of good will, I will rephrase my question.


Can you provide for me an example of sinless flesh (aside from the pre-disobedient Adam and the sinless Jesus) outside of 1 Corinthians 15?

.

 

[TB2]

Paul states there are different types of flesh and then cites a few examples (beasts, birds, flesh), none of which is human (or sinful).

"39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds and another for fish" 1 Cor 15.39

The only other time Paul mentions "flesh" in that entire chapter is to say flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The would certainly prevent the incarnate Christ from entering his own kingdom if that is taken as written .

Corrrect. Jesus's "flesh and blood" perishable, mortal body cannot enter the Kingdom. But Christ's raised/resurrected imperishable, immortal, glorified body can (see v. 42, 50-54). Our resurrection bodies will be the same type as Christ's.

And the use of 1 Corinthians 15 to prove 1 Corinthians 15 is about sinless flesh begs the question. The text in dispute cannot be used to prove it's veracity.

My argument was not tautological. I did not assume a priori that "flesh" in 1 Cor 15 means physical body. I determined that based on the immediate context. That is often times the only possible way to determine the intended meaning (from the immediate context).

Animals are not humans. Animals do not need Jesus. Red herring of false equivalence. It's worth noting Paul mentioned beasts, birds, and fish..... but he did not mention human flesh. Not once. Beasts, birds, and fish would be examples of flesh that exists irrelevant of spirit/flesh, righteousness/sin and/or good/evil.

Paul actually does include humans at the start of that list: "39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds and another for fish" 1 Cor 15.39.

1. We both agree that "God did not make sinful flesh"

2. We both agree that "God created the flesh Paul is referencing."

3. We both agree that Paul references animals, birds, and fish in that list (of God-created flesh)

4. But Paul also lists humans at the start of that same list (of God-created flesh):

"39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds and another for fish" 1 Cor 15.39.


Conclusion: The God-created "flesh" in 1 Cor 15.39 (which in Paul's list includes humans, animals, birds, and fish) is not sinful flesh.