The Heart of the Gospel- The Resurrection

[TB2]

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

?
Have no idea what you're talking about or what you think I'm denying

 

[EarlyActs]

?
Have no idea what you're talking about or what you think I'm denying

Sorry I think I got this one crossed with another.

Have a fine day. Maybe see you again at fossils.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

And that physical resurrection body is sinless (spiritual), immortal and glorious (1 Co 15:42-44).

In Paul, the physical body of the fallen sinful nature is "flesh."
While the resurrection physical body is spiritual (sinless), in contrast to "flesh."

 

[Eleanor]

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.

The resurrection is the Messianic enthronement of Christ in heaven (Ac 2:29-36), of which David's throne was a type.

According to NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church, Christ's one and only everlasting kingdom is still the same, not earthly, and here now (Lk 11:20, Mt 12:28), but invisible and within (Lk 17:20-21) the hearts where he reigns and rules.

 

[TB2]

And that physical resurrection body is sinless (spiritual), immortal and glorious (1 Co 15:42-44).

In Paul, the physical body of the fallen sinful nature is "flesh."
While the resurrection physical body is spiritual (sinless), in contrast to "flesh."

The word "flesh" means different things in different contexts. In 1 Cor 15 Paul does not use "flesh" in the 'carnal, sinful' way that he does in Galatians. Only the immediate context of a passage can tell us what use of flesh is intended.

See Post #60

 

[Josheb]

"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

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.

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).

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.

The specific question asked is still not being answered.

Where does scripture outside of 1 Corinthians 15 make a report of sinless human flesh apart from the pre-disobedient Adam and the incarnate Jesus?

.

 

[Eleanor]

The word "flesh" means different things in different contexts. In 1 Cor 15 Paul does not use "flesh" in the 'carnal, sinful' way that he does in Galatians. Only the immediate context of a passage can tell us what use of flesh is intended.

See Post #60

Paul does not treat of biology apart from 1 Co 15:39.
The only other meaning of "flesh" in Paul is the sinful nature.
For contrary to your assertion that no human flesh inherits the kingdom of God, we know that Jesus' flesh did inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul does not teach in 1 Co 15:50 that there is no flesh in the kingdom of God.

 

[Eleanor]

The specific question asked is still not being answered.

Where does scripture outside of 1 Corinthians 15 make a report of sinless human flesh apart from the pre-disobedient Adam and the incarnate Jesus?

Oh, let me!

Nowhere!

 

[TB2]

The specific question asked is still not being answered.

Where does scripture outside of 1 Corinthians 15 make a report of sinless human flesh apart from the pre-disobedient Adam and the incarnate Jesus?

.

You completely sidestepped the fact that Paul actually does include humans along with animals, birds, and fish, contra your initial claim.

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.

We both agree that "God did not make sinful flesh." We both agree that "God created the flesh Paul is referencing," including animals, birds, and fish. Your criticism was that humans are not included in that list of flesh that God created. But humans actually are included in that same list that you already said you agree is a list of flesh God created. Since we both agree that God doesn't create sinful flesh the flesh in 1 Cor 15.39 can't be a reference to sinful flesh. Thus, there is no reason to answer your question and give you an example outside 1 Cor 15 because we've just seen that flesh in 1 Cor 15 doesn't refer to sinful flesh.

 

[TB2]

Paul does not treat of biology apart from 1 Co 15:39.
The only other meaning of "flesh" in Paul is the sinful nature.
For contrary to your assertion that no human flesh inherits the kingdom of God, we know that Jesus' flesh did inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul does not teach in 1 Co 15:50 that there is no flesh in the kingdom of God.

Jesus's "flesh and blood" mortal physical body did not inherit the Kingdom. Jesus's resurrection, glorified, immortal resurrection body did

 

[Josheb]

Oh, let me!

Nowhere!

Give the man the opportunity to make his case without begging the question. The opportunity may never previously availed itself. That is parly the purpose of the forum .

Proverbs 27:17
Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

Proverbs 15:22
Without consultation, plans are frustrated, But with many counselors they succeed.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us debate your case,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They shall become as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be like wool.

 

[Josheb]

You completely sidestepped the fact that Paul actually does include humans along with animals, birds, and fish, contra your initial claim.

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.

We both agree that "God did not make sinful flesh." We both agree that "God created the flesh Paul is referencing," including animals, birds, and fish. Your criticism was that humans are not included in that list of flesh that God created. But humans actually are included in that same list that you already said you agree is a list of flesh God created. Since we both agree that God doesn't create sinful flesh the flesh in 1 Cor 15.39 can't be a reference to sinful flesh. Thus, there is no reason to answer your question and give you an example outside 1 Cor 15 because we've just seen that flesh in 1 Cor 15 doesn't refer to sinful flesh.

That is still not an answer to the question asked.

Outside of 1 Corinthians 15 and apart from the pre-disobedient Adam and the incarnate Christ, where does scripture make a report of sinless human flesh?

Please answer the question asked.

 

[TB2]

That is still not an answer to the question asked.

Outside of 1 Corinthians 15 and apart from the pre-disobedient Adam and the incarnate Christ, where does scripture make a report of sinless human flesh?

Please answer the question asked.

Your question is an interesting one to be sure that would be fun to look at after this one (and I say let's do it; that would be a fun, informative, and I'm sure another lively round of discussions we could have along with @Eleanor and anyone else who wants to join in. I've never done a comprehensive study on all the different uses of "flesh" throughout the Bible. I'm sure there is much to learn). But first, it would be nice if we could just get through one passage (!) before adding others.

That is not a dodge. As I noted (in post #69), I see no reason to address the question. I truly don't see how the question is relevant or germane to the present discussion. It doesn't matter what any other passage says for or against. We're discussing what flesh means in 1 Cor 15, not what it means somewhere else. And to understand that we have to look at the immediate context of 1 Cor 15. Again, that is not a dodge. That is how exegesis is done. Before we can begin to consider how flesh in 1 Cor 15 relates to Paul's usage of flesh (sarx) elsewhere and the rest of Pauline theology, we must first understand how Paul uses it here, in the context of 1 Cor 15. That is not a dodge, that is the topic at hand that we are specifically discussing, is it not?

However, I also don't want to keep going round and round about it, so fine, let's talk about your question. You and @Eleanor obviously want me to say that there is no other place in Scripture that speaks of a 'sinless flesh' (apart from the three exceptions already cited in the question). Like I said, I haven't studied the topic comprehensively, so I don’t know the answer to your question. But I suspect that yes, there are additional exceptions.

But either way, I do object to how the question is phrased to begin with. I think "sinless flesh" is an incorrect way to say it. To me, the issue is not whether there are additional examples where Scripture speaks of "sinless flesh," but whether there are additional examples where Scripture simply speaks of regular, normal "flesh" flesh (the physical 'meat' or body "flesh" of something). That kind of flesh (i.e. the literal kind) is a neutral, amoral term. "Sinful flesh" vs "sinless flesh" adds a moral element to it and, thus, already colors the question before we seek to answer it. So, to me, the question is phrased wrong from the start. The issue is not whether Scripture speaks of "sinless flesh," but whether Scripture ever speaks of just regular, normal "flesh" flesh. Phrased another way, one could ask if "flesh" is ever used in Scripture in the literal physical body "flesh" sense of the word without moral or theological overtones. We've already seen that Scripture does: The flesh of animals, birds, and fish in 1 Cor 15.39 is neither sinless nor sinful, it's just physical body "flesh" flesh.

But to save us from having to continue going round and round about it, let's say for argument's sake that there are no other Scriptures that speak of what you call "sinless flesh"; like I said, that is still irrelevant to the question of what "flesh" means in 1 Cor 15. It still doesn't change the fact that in 1 Cor 15.39 humans are included in a list of kinds of "flesh" that God created along with animals, birds, and fish; and God doesn't create sinful flesh; so flesh in 1 Cor 15.39 is not speaking of sinful flesh, but regular physical body "flesh."

 

[Eleanor]

Jesus's "flesh and blood" mortal physical body did not inherit the Kingdom. Jesus's resurrection, glorified, immortal resurrection body did

Except that "in context," Paul is not referring to Jesus, he is referring to "we," at the future "resurrection" (1 Co 15:51-52), neither of which apply to Jesus.

 

[Eleanor]

Give the man the opportunity to make his case without begging the question. The opportunity may never previously availed itself. That is parly the purpose of the forum .

As is my response, following, which is more explicit:

"Except that "in context," Paul is not referring to Jesus, he is referring to "we," at the future "resurrection" (1 Co 15:51-52), neither of which apply to Jesus."

 

[TB2]

Except that "in context," Paul is not referring to Jesus, he is referring to "we," at the future "resurrection" (1 Co 15:51-52), neither of which apply to Jesus.

I was referring to an earlier point you made about Jesus. This one:

"For contrary to your assertion that no human flesh inherits the kingdom of God, we know that Jesus' flesh did inherit the kingdom of God."

In response I said this:

"Jesus's "flesh and blood" mortal physical body did not inherit the Kingdom. Jesus's resurrection, glorified, immortal resurrection body did"

‐-----------------------------

The greater point is that "flesh and blood" is a well known idiom for the physical body that we even use today

 

[Eleanor]

You were the one who raised the point about Jesus. I was just responding to your point.

You have me confused with someone else

 

[TB2]

For contrary to your assertion that no human flesh inherits the kingdom of God, we know that Jesus' flesh did inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul does not teach in 1 Co 15:50 that there is no flesh in the kingdom of God.

Jesus's "flesh and blood" mortal physical body did not inherit the Kingdom. Jesus's resurrection, glorified, immortal resurrection body did

 

[TB2]

As is my response, following, which is more explicit:

"Except that "in context," Paul is not referring to Jesus, he is referring to "we," at the future "resurrection" (1 Co 15:51-52), neither of which apply to Jesus."

Ahhh, I see. My bad

 

[TB2]

You have me confused with someone else

Ahh, my bad