Young Earth/Old Earth

[JIM]

It is the same root word "raised" throughout and Paul is clearly referring to Jesus's bodily resurrection when he cites the early Christian creed in 1 Cor 15.3-5.

What I'm saying is not meant to be controversial and is well accepted among NT scholars. Perhaps "glorification" and "exaltation" related to ascension is what you're referring to. But Jesus's resurrected body indeed a physical corporeal body and the 'same' body, but a supernaturally transformed immortal body that will never decay. The same will happen to us. Jesus is the firstfruits of the end time resurrection. We will follow suit. Our "natural" perishable mortal body will be supernaturally transformed as a "spiritual" resurrection body. "Spiritual" body does not mean soul, but literally of the Spirit--reconstituted by the Spirit. And what a day that will be Blessings

"Spiritual" body means not a physical body.

 

[JIM]

It is the same root word "raised" throughout and Paul is clearly referring to Jesus's bodily resurrection when he cites the early Christian creed in 1 Cor 15.3-5.

But it is not the same root word used anywhere speaking about our resurrection that the end of the age!! I understand your hope for a life much like this one except that it will be perfect. I do not believe in such a thing, and I do not believe the Bible speaks of such a thing. And I will leave it at that.

 

[TB2]

But it is not the same root word used anywhere speaking about our resurrection that the end of the age!! I understand your hope for a life much like this one except that it will be perfect. I do not believe in such a thing, and I do not believe the Bible speaks of such a thing. And I will leave it at that.

Then you've completely lost me. 1 Cor 15 teaches that Jesus's resurrection body was not a mortal body

 

[GeneZ]

1 Corinthians 15 does

Show us one verse that said he was glorified before the ascension?
I found none.

And, next time.. don't be lazy. Don't make us play fetch. Give the chapter and verse.

Its shows you are lazy thinker when you tell someone to do the work you should be doing by just giving an entire chapter.

Now what happened to Jesus when he was resurrected was "glorious."
But, that does not mean he was yet glorified.

Glorified means He was returned being as God, and not longer a man fully controlled by God.
He no longer has to pray to the Father for anything. For He is now the one being God! That is glorification.

 

[TB2]

Show us one verse that said he was glorified before the ascension?
I found none.

And, next time.. don't be lazy. Don't make us play fetch. Give the chapter and verse.

Its shows you are lazy thinker when you tell someone to do the work you should be doing by just giving an entire chapter.

Now what happened to Jesus when he was resurrected was "glorious."
But, that does not mean he was yet glorified.

Glorified means He was returned being as God, and not longer a man fully controlled by God.
He no longer has to pray to the Father for anything. For He is now the one being God! That is glorification.

I think we're splitting hairs here. I'm talking about the 'glorified' immortal supernaturally transformed resurrection body of Jesus. If you're referring to glorification as in exaltation to the right hand of the Father during ascension then fine. I'm not disputing that. But my point was in reference to the resurrection body that Jesus's resurrected body was not simply an reanimation or resuscitation of his mortal body (like Lazarus who still died) but a Spirit reconstituted body. Some times I think you're just looking to dispute

 

[GeneZ]

I think we're splitting hairs here. I'm talking about the 'glorified' immortal supernaturally transformed resurrection body of Jesus. If you're referring to glorification as in exaltation to the right hand of the Father during ascension then fine. I'm not disputing that. But my point was in reference to the resurrection body that Jesus's resurrected body was not simply an reanimation or resuscitation of his mortal body (like Lazarus who still died) but a Spirit reconstituted body. Some times I think you're just looking to dispute

His body was resurrected. Not yet glorified.

What will happen to us in the resurrection will be trashing our present bodies and entering into glorification.
Glorification by receiving a glorious body just like His present body.

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." ​

Philippians 3:21​

​

After his resurrection his body appeared to be the same Lord they had known before.... with the one exception of the scars in his hands and feet.

When we see Him for the first time in his glorious body?
The first thing we will do will be to drop to our knees in AWE!


grace and peace .............

 

[TB2]

His body was resurrected. Not yet glorified.

What will happen to us in the resurrection will be trashing our present bodies and entering into glorification.
Glorification by receiving a glorious body just like His present body.

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." ​

Philippians 3:21​

​

After his resurrection his body appeared to be the same Lord they had known before.... with the one exception of the scars in his hands and feet.

When we see Him for the first time in his glorious body?
The first thing we will do will be to drop to our knees in AWE!


grace and peace .............

Perfect verse. Thanks for proving my point for me

 

[Hobie]

My vote was undecided.

I have many questions about the age of the Earth. One question being,

If the earth is young and created in six literal 24 hour days, and everything seemed to be around a 24-hour period, no indication of anything faster, no hyper speed etc... Then how could Adam name every animal in one 24-hour day, or less assuming he had to sleep?

19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. Genesis 2:19-20.

@Sereni-tea Thoughts?

Remember how they went into the ark, two by two, or seven by seven. I dont think they had that many as varieties when they started, so it was one type, lets say wolfhound, that was at the beginning and from that came all the dog varieties, etc..

 

[GeneZ]

Perfect verse. Thanks for proving my point for me

Hello?

That speaks of his ascended, glorified body!

Do you have access to coffee in England?

You may want to get away from tea only.

 

[TB2]

Hello?

That speaks of his ascended, glorified body!

Do you have access to coffee in England?

You may want to get away from tea only.

And where in the passage does it state that?

 

[GeneZ]

And where in the passage does it state that?

In the other 99.9% of the Bible you ignore as well... perhaps?

Your approach is designed to wear out kind well meaning souls.
Those naïve to think that they can help you to see what your pride will cause you to be denied the grace of God.
The very grace needed to see what the Word is saying.

But He gives greater grace. ​

Therefore He says:​

​

“God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble.”​

James 4:6​

​

I say that for the benefit of others as a warning.

 

[TB2]

In the other 99.9% of the Bible you ignore as well... perhaps?

Your approach is designed to wear out kind well meaning souls.
Those naïve to think that they can help you to see what your pride will cause you to be denied the grace of God.
The very grace needed to see what the Word is saying.

But He gives greater grace. ​

Therefore He says:​

​

“God resists the proud,​

But gives grace to the humble.”​

James 4:6​

​

I say that for the benefit of others as a warning.

Stop with the personal insults. I don't disparage you or question your motives so I'll thank you to behave in kind

Where in the Phil. verse you cited does it state that it's the ascension?

 

[GeneZ]

Stop with the personal insults. I don't disparage you or question your motives so I'll thank you to behave in kind

Where in the Phil. verse you cited does it state that it's the ascension?

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." Philippians 3:21​

Philippians was written by Paul well AFTER Jesus ascended.

 

[TB2]

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." Philippians 3:21​

Philippians was written by Paul well AFTER Jesus ascended.

And well AFTER he resurrected too. And Phil 3.21 is closer to Paul's language in 1 Cor 15 about the resurrection body, so no it's not my pride for disagreeing with you. I have a Scriptural basis for doing so. And that's fine. We can agree to disagree

 

[GeneZ]

And well AFTER he resurrected too. And Phil 3.21 is closer to Paul's language in 1 Cor 15 about the resurrection body, so no it's not my pride for disagreeing with you. I have a Scriptural basis for doing so. And that's fine. We can agree to disagree

Paul saw the ascended Christ speak to him from Heaven.....
Paul did not see the risen Christ from the grave who had not yet been glorified.

Philippians and 1 Corinthians were written at a time the Jesus had been already ascended to heaven and glorified.

grace and peace.....

 

[GeneZ]

And well AFTER he resurrected too. And Phil 3.21 is closer to Paul's language in 1 Cor 15 about the resurrection body, so no it's not my pride for disagreeing with you. I have a Scriptural basis for doing so. And that's fine. We can agree to disagree

I Cor 15 is about OUR resurrection body.

Not about the body of Jesus right after he was resurrected.

The Body Jesus had on earth had to be a sinless body just like Adam was created. Adam did not have a heavenly body.

1 Cor 15 speaks of OUR glorified body, because we will receive the same kind of Body Jesus received in His glorification in Heaven.

You must learn to differentiate a resurrection body (Jesus from the tomb) and a glorified resurrection body of Heaven.

 

[TB2]

I Cor 15 is about OUR resurrection body.

Not about the body of Jesus right after he was resurrected.

The Body Jesus had on earth had to be a sinless body just like Adam was created. Adam did not have a heavenly body.

1 Cor 15 speaks of OUR glorified body, because we will receive the same kind of Body Jesus received in His glorification in Heaven.

You must learn to differentiate a resurrection body (Jesus from the tomb) and a glorified resurrection body of Heaven.

I really don't know why you're arguing with me about this. It doesn't really matter whether it's the ascension or resurrection. It's still a glorified body.

But since you insist on doing this then fine: 1 Cor 15 opens up with the resurrection of Jesus not us as the firstfruits of the end time resurrection. Paul makes the incredible claim that the end time resurrection that will happen at the end of the world has already begun with Jesus and that we will follow suit. Jesus is the firstfruits of that process as explained in the fist half 1 Cor 15. His transformed body is the pattern for our resurrection body as explained in the second half of 1 Cor 15. The language used in 1 Cor 15 is the same type of language used in the Phil 3.21 verse that you cite.

This is not a controversial thing to say and is well recognized among NT scholars. Where do you think I got it from? It's not my idea. I'm not an expert of NT biblical exegesis but depend on those more learned than I am on the subject. Like for example this (Word Biblical evangelical) commentary on the book of Phillipians by Hawthorne & Martin.... which says precisely what I've said: IT'S ABOUT THE RESURRECTION BODY (and relates to 1 Corinthians 15!)

 

[EarlyActs]

Thank you for the clarification and I apologize.

Even if what you say is true it still doesn't comport with the geologic/paleontological record.

So are the ice cubes in my freezer. There are a thousand different things that can cause that. Turbid ice = GLOBAL FLOOD is a conclusion that does not automatically follow. The point is much much more than that is needed.

Also, one of the problems is how ad hoc flood theories are. Have you ever noticed how they account for *everything* in the fossil record? Turbid ice, GLOBAL FLOOD. Clear ice (because we have that too), GLOBAL FLOOD; mixed sediments, GLOBAL FLOOD; non mixed discrete sediments, GLOBAL FLOOD; high energy rapid catastrophic scouring and deposition of sandstones and conglomerates, GLOBAL FLOOD; NON-catastrophic low energy quiet water slow growth reefs and stromatolites in low energy shales, silts, mudstones, carbonates, dolomites, limestones (60-70% of the sedimentary record consists of low energy NON-catastrophic deposits!), GLOBAL FLOOD ("That was when the flood ebbed for a bit"). The problem is flood geologists have no objective criteria and so everything can be made to fit in a flood model because (no matter how mutually contradictory the circumstances) they've already predetermined their own conclusion. That's why it's not science.

they've already predetermined their own conclusion

Oh, and you haven't? Try reading a geology book with 50% margins of error.

I few posts ago I asked for 5 examples from of knowing God's attributes in the natural world, and 5 examples of delusional humans suppressing that knowledge, as Romans 1 says, back-to-back. Perhaps you did; if so could you tell me the post #?

 

[EarlyActs]

Thank you for the clarification and I apologize.

Even if what you say is true it still doesn't comport with the geologic/paleontological record.

So are the ice cubes in my freezer. There are a thousand different things that can cause that. Turbid ice = GLOBAL FLOOD is a conclusion that does not automatically follow. The point is much much more than that is needed.

Also, one of the problems is how ad hoc flood theories are. Have you ever noticed how they account for *everything* in the fossil record? Turbid ice, GLOBAL FLOOD. Clear ice (because we have that too), GLOBAL FLOOD; mixed sediments, GLOBAL FLOOD; non mixed discrete sediments, GLOBAL FLOOD; high energy rapid catastrophic scouring and deposition of sandstones and conglomerates, GLOBAL FLOOD; NON-catastrophic low energy quiet water slow growth reefs and stromatolites in low energy shales, silts, mudstones, carbonates, dolomites, limestones (60-70% of the sedimentary record consists of low energy NON-catastrophic deposits!), GLOBAL FLOOD ("That was when the flood ebbed for a bit"). The problem is flood geologists have no objective criteria and so everything can be made to fit in a flood model because (no matter how mutually contradictory the circumstances) they've already predetermined their own conclusion. That's why it's not science.

Yes, the record shows mountains were raises, sheesh. Stupidest thing I've heard you say.

 

[EarlyActs]

Thank you for the clarification and I apologize.

Even if what you say is true it still doesn't comport with the geologic/paleontological record.

So are the ice cubes in my freezer. There are a thousand different things that can cause that. Turbid ice = GLOBAL FLOOD is a conclusion that does not automatically follow. The point is much much more than that is needed.

Also, one of the problems is how ad hoc flood theories are. Have you ever noticed how they account for *everything* in the fossil record? Turbid ice, GLOBAL FLOOD. Clear ice (because we have that too), GLOBAL FLOOD; mixed sediments, GLOBAL FLOOD; non mixed discrete sediments, GLOBAL FLOOD; high energy rapid catastrophic scouring and deposition of sandstones and conglomerates, GLOBAL FLOOD; NON-catastrophic low energy quiet water slow growth reefs and stromatolites in low energy shales, silts, mudstones, carbonates, dolomites, limestones (60-70% of the sedimentary record consists of low energy NON-catastrophic deposits!), GLOBAL FLOOD ("That was when the flood ebbed for a bit"). The problem is flood geologists have no objective criteria and so everything can be made to fit in a flood model because (no matter how mutually contradictory the circumstances) they've already predetermined their own conclusion. That's why it's not science.

Yes, the record shows mountains were raised, sheesh. Stupidest thing I've heard you say.