The Garden Tree

[101G]

The natural body is temporally physical, but the spiritual body is eternal, even for those who will "resurrect unto damnation

first thanks for the reply, second, we will have a resurrected body not a spiritual body in nature. you quoted Luke 24:39 correctly. but our bodies, as his is, will be powered by the Spirit, and not by blood, (see Leviticus 17:14a). not a Spirit body itself, but a body that is "powered by, or is dominated by the Spirit. supportive scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body". here the word "spiritual" which describe the body is the greek word,
G4152 πνευματικός pneumatikos (pnev-ma-tiy-kos') adj.
1. spiritual, pertaining to the spirit.
2. that which is motivated and controlled through the spirit.

if one would notice the second definition, it tells it all. example, it's an adjectives that end in "kos", which do not describe the substance out of which something is made. it describe the force that is animating the thing in question. it's like saying on the one hand, "Is this a steel ship or a wooden ship?" and saying on the other hand, "Is this a nuclear-powered ship or a steam powered ship?" this adjective do not describe the type of body we will have, but the source that power it. hence a natural body is powered by the blood, which is the life of all flesh, again (see Leviticus 17:14a), or it's a spirit-powered body. But it's still a body just as Luke 24:39 states, but without blood.

so you're correct in that "The natural body is temporally physical, with BLOOD. but the spiritual body is eternal with the spirit.

PICJAG.

 

[Netchaplain]

first thanks for the reply, second, we will have a resurrected body not a spiritual body in nature.

Hi, and I like that you use the Word as much as you can, you don't see much of that today in Christendom. True, the new body is not a natural body but a spiritual body. Natural means of this world, and spiritual means not of this world, but both involve a physical body. We know that is was the Spirit of God who raised the Lord Jesus (Rom 8:11), which is same as saying "raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Rom 6:4); plus Jesus could have chosen to raise Himself (Jhn 10:18).

I believe the spiritual body has the same parts (flesh, bone, etc.) but of course are of a different substance that is indestructible.

There is much to discuss on this subject and I would like to share the following link because it explains all that I believe concerning this subject: 1 Corinthians 15 Commentary - Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

The link is always busy so it's slow-loading for the present.

 

[101G]

Hi, and I like that you use the Word as much as you can, you don't see much of that today in Christendom. True, the new body is not a natural body but a spiritual body. Natural means of this world, and spiritual means not of this world, but both involve a physical body. We know that is was the Spirit of God who raised the Lord Jesus (Rom 8:11), which is same as saying "raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Rom 6:4); plus Jesus could have chosen to raise Himself (Jhn 10:18).

I believe the spiritual body has the same parts (flesh, bone, etc.) but of course are of a different substance that is indestructible.

There is much to discuss on this subject and I would like to share the following link because it explains all that I believe concerning this subject: 1 Corinthians 15 Commentary - Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

The link is always busy so it's slow-loading for the present.

we Agree, looking futher to this discussion.

PICJAG.

 

[marks]

Various could be the imaginations of what man’s life might have been without the fall, but I believe one concept may be fairly certain. Man would not have known, nor partaken of God’s Son and Spirit in the presently needed capacity. There would be no need of being one in spirit with the Trinity, for man would then have no need of such union; as a union being “in” one far surpasses merely being “with” one (Christianity – being in God: Judaism – being with God).

Hi NC,

This is a very thought provoking post!

I've thought sometimes about God's overall plan, and about His foreknowledge, and the fall of man. I wonder, though, if man had not disobeyed, that God might accomplish the same final end regardless.

Might God not have indwelt man after giving him to eat from the tree of life? What would it mean to have eternal life if not that being the relationship with God that we currently enjoy? Would Adam in an unfallen state have had less then we in our recovery?

Something else I've thought about is that God is restoring us to original plan. We are being renewed, restored, as if the end goal is what was at the beginning. I'm thinking that was what God had in mind after all.

Surely it cannot be disagreed that God’s purpose for creating was to glorify Himself,

I think God's glory is seen in us when we show His goodness through that He does in and through our lives. Just like Jesus said, Now is the time for the Son of Man to be glorified - it was time to go to the cross.

Do we really have to know evil to enjoy the good? Do we really have to have a contrast against good to appreciated holiness for what it is?

Would Adam have forever falllen short of seeing God's goodness had he not stepped down into sin? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are saying.

I'm thinking of where Scripture tells us to be wise to good but simple to evil. Or where it says that in the new creation, none of the former things will be remembered, or come to mind. If we don't remember this time, then where is the benefit of having been dead in the depravity of sin first? I'm not sure I understand that idea.

I also wanted to mention I found your idea of God's image interesting. Same as us but much larger. There's something about that reasoning I really like!

Personally, I think that the trials we endure are to lead us out of the thinking that our flesh still has power. As we choose God in the face of our testings, we find that faith does overcome after all.

It's a most wonderful thing indeed, we are never on our own, for He has promised to never leave or forsake us.

Much love!
Mark

 

[Helen]

Other than Fire and Great Light...I believe the only "likeness" we will see is as Jesus said. "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father."

God IS. I don't believe He has shape...because, when you dwell on that thought...if He had shape, then stands to reason there would be something around that shape...or it couldn't be a shape with an outline to it.
So it cannot be...because "God IS" period... and He is in ALL , is ALL, in everything, and everywhere...there is nowhere where God isn't.
That is what I read in His Word.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The Angel of God and once when God appeared to Abraham as three men.

Never as Jesus Christ.

Joshua 5:13-15
[13] And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? [14] And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? [15] And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

 

[marks]

Other than Fire and Great Light...I believe the only "likeness" we will see is as Jesus said. "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father."

God IS. I don't believe He has shape...because, when you dwell on that thought...if He had shape, then stands to reason there would be something around that shape...or it couldn't be a shape with an outline to it.
So it cannot be...because "God IS" period... and He is in ALL , is ALL, in everything, and everywhere...there is nowhere where God isn't.
That is what I read in His Word.

Hi ByGrace,

I tend to think the same way. God took on flesh to become like us.

Phillipians 2:6-8 KJV
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Until the Word became flesh, God was spirit.

Much love!
Mark

 

[CoreIssue]

Joshua 5:13-15
[13] And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? [14] And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? [15] And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

I forgot about that one.

Since the angel of God has the appearance of a man we don't know if that was the angel of God role are not. Not that it is that important for our discussion. Either way it is the second person of the Trinity.

 

[marks]

I'd like to suggest remembering that Angel is Messenger. When we read "Angel of God", we can understand this to mean God's Messenger. This messenger can be angelic in the sense we normally think of (cheribim, etc.), or, in those instances where we learn this Angel is God Himself, then this is God expressing Himself in a fashion we can relate to, whether it be as a man appearing to Abraham, as fire appearing to Moses, perhaps even as the flaming sword guarding the way to the tree of life.

When it was time for God to express Himself more completely to man, this Messenger of God became flesh, became the Son, "this day I have begotten thee", and was named Jesus.

Much love!
Mark

 

[Netchaplain]

we Agree, looking futher to this discussion.

PICJAG.

Sounds good! God bless, and God be blessed!!

 

[Netchaplain]

I'd like to suggest remembering that Angel is Messenger. When we read "Angel of God", we can understand this to mean God's Messenger. This messenger can be angelic in the sense we normally think of (cheribim, etc.), or, in those instances where we learn this Angel is God Himself, then this is God expressing Himself in a fashion we can relate to, whether it be as a man appearing to Abraham, as fire appearing to Moses, perhaps even as the flaming sword guarding the way to the tree of life.

When it was time for God to express Himself more completely to man, this Messenger of God became flesh, became the Son, "this day I have begotten thee", and was named Jesus.

Much love!
Mark

Hi, and I like your comments and appreciate your input! Myself, I never attribute any of the Deities (Trinity) to an angelic being because of what Paul revealed (Heb 1:4-7, 13, 14).

 

[marks]

Hi, and I like your comments and appreciate your input! Myself, I never attribute any of the Deities (Trinity) to an angelic being because of what Paul revealed (Heb 1:4-7, 13, 14).

Hi NC,

Thank you, and question . . . are you thinking I'm doing that? Mixing God and angels?

Much love!
Mark

 

[Netchaplain]

Hi NC,

Thank you, and question . . . are you thinking I'm doing that? Mixing God and angels?

Much love!
Mark

No, I suspected you just meant God could appear as an angel, not be an angel. Blessings!

 

[marks]

No, I suspected you just meant God could appear as an angel, not be an angel. Blessings!

OK, cool! More like, when God comes with a message, then He is His Own Messenger, the Angel of the Lord, or the Messenger of the Lord.

Much love!
Mark

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Various could be the imaginations of what man’s life might have been without the fall, but I believe one concept may be fairly certain. Man would not have known, nor partaken of God’s Son and Spirit in the presently needed capacity. There would be no need of being one in spirit with the Trinity, for man would then have no need of such union; as a union being “in” one far surpasses merely being “with” one (Christianity – being in God: Judaism – being with God).

Surely it cannot be disagreed that God’s purpose for creating was to glorify Himself, and too spacious are the scriptural passages attesting to this truth to include here. It’s my understanding that the greatest of that which glorifies God, after creation, is His attribute of holiness (then love, etc.). I believe Adam may not have been familiar with the meaning of right and wrong until they were “contrasted” with one another, via the commands of that which he may do (Gen 2:16) and that which he may not do (v 17). The same concerns the knowing of God’s holiness via the contrast of evil, similar to the learning of light via first the presence of darkness (and creation was dark before it was lighted – Gen 1:2, 3).

My perception of “Our image, after Our likeness” in verse 26 of the Bible’s first Chapter is that “image” refers to what God looks like (head, eyes, ears, arms, hands, etc.); and “likeness” refers to God’s autonomy (thinking, reasoning, choosing, etc.). God desires us to choose Him (Deu 30:19; 1Tim 2:4; 2Pet 3:9), and in so doing He prepares the believer to trustingly endure the infirmities and difficulties which must be encountered via the sin nature, in order to teach us that which is of His holy nature.

Therefore, I think this answers to the reason of His foreknowledge and use concerning the pair on the ground choosing to partake of the apple on the Tree (pun, assuming an apple), through their enlightenment concerning “good and evil.” They could not (even today) know of God’s holiness without comparing it to evil, and so the serpent (per usual) brings forth an admixture of truth and error in saying, “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil”; which is close to the truth that “ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil (which is a likeness of Him).

One cannot misunderstand that God foreknew man would partake of the Tree (in His omniscience), and the intent of this article is to assure believers that He’s using everything—from the beginning of the present heaven and earth—to the new heaven and earth, for glorifying Himself, especially in believers, “according to His good pleasure which He has purposed in Himself” (Eph 1:9). Believers are never left to themselves in anything (Jhn 14:6; Josh 1:5; Psa 37:25)!NC

It seems like you are saying that we would not truly know God unless Adam had sinned. It's as though you are saying having a Satan and what he represents is a good thing because Satan was used in helping man understand good and evil. I disagree completely if this is what you are saying. According to the inspired apostle, man was created to be both “God’s image and glory” (1Co 11:7), hence to reflect the qualities of his Creator, conducting himself so as to reflect the glory of God. As God’s earthly son, man should resemble, or be like, his heavenly Father. To be otherwise would be to contradict and reproach the divine parenthood of God.—Compare Mal 1:6.
I don't believe sin and death or that a Satan and a Devil had to exist for us to know God's love or for Gods glory and holiness be understood by his creation.
Adam didn't need to experience sin or practice sin nor was there a need to be a Satan so that God's glory and holiness would be realized or understood.
As is stated in the scriptures we are to be like God, you know that he doesn't experience sin or practice sin to his glory so do you think God wants or wanted any part of his creation to practice sin or bring sin or death into existence so that God's glory and holiness would or could be realized. We are to bring God glory by being like him not by being opposite of him. God has never wanted any part of his creation to sin so God's glory and holiness his love would have been clearly understood and realized by his creation. If Adam had not sinned man would still know the difference between good and evil. God knew the difference and he created us in his image(love, justice, intelligence, etc.)

 

[Netchaplain]

It seems like you are saying that we would not truly know God unless Adam had sinned. It's as though you are saying having a Satan and what he represents is a good thing because Satan was used in helping man understand good and evil.

Hi, and appreciate your reply and interesting comments! I believe God's omniscience answers a lot of questions, so wouldn't it be more inquiring to ponder why God chose to orchestrate everything the way they are transpiring? It's not like He created man and hoped he wouldn't choose to sin, for in His foreknowledge He knew he would. Thus I see that He has already planned to use good and evil for the purpose of manifesting His glory through angels and man.

It's clear to me that God's intention was not for man to avoid sin because He knew they would!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Hi, and appreciate your reply and interesting comments! I believe God's omniscience answers a lot of questions, so wouldn't it be more inquiring to ponder why God chose to orchestrate everything the way the way they are transpiring? It's not like He created man and hoped he wouldn't choose to sin, for in His foreknowledge He knew he would. Thus I see that He has already planned to use good and evil for the purpose of manifesting His glory through angels and man.

It's clear to me that God's intention was not for man to avoid sin because He knew they would!

I don't question the way God chose to do things the way he did, as you do. I don't define omniscience or choose to look at omniscience as you do. It seems by what you stated that you believe that God continuously sees every second of the future from before he started creating on through the present and beyond. I don't see Gods omniscience as you do. I do believe God can choose to see every second of the future from the time before he started creating on through the present and beyond, I just don't believe that's What God did. See God has free will and can choose to exercise all his abilities however he wishes to exercise them. But I understand one thing about God that a lot of people don't consider, that is that God controls his abilities and not that God's abilities control him. When God created intelligent beings rather they be Angels or mankind he created them with free will. You know that means that these intelligent beings would be able choose to obey or not obey God. We must all understand that when we speak of God's abilities that God is infallible in every way including his abilities. That means that if God has exercised his ability of omniscience as you said he did then Adam didn't choose to disobey God but instead simply followed a program that God chose for him. You see if God chose to see every second of the future before he began creating on into the present and beyond he being infallible in this ability then Adam not being in existence when God started seeing the future before creation began then how could Adam choose to obey or disobey God since he doesn't exist yet. Then when Adam came into existence he couldn't follow any path except What God saw before Adam existed. Adams ability to choose can't prove God wrong. So when God commanded Adam to not eat the forbidden fruit he knew he was giving Adam an impossible command to obey. I don't believe God to be unjust like that, obviously you do. Also if God looked into the future before he started creating then God knew a rebellious Angel would cause a rebellion and that all the evil, deceit, murders, wars, all existed in the mind of God and God put all that evil into motion when he began to create, but the scriptures say evil doesn't originate from God so again I don't believe God looks at all seconds of the future from before he began creating on through the future. I believe he chooses to use his ability of omniscience in a selective way rather than seeing all seconds of the future and doing away with free will.

 

[Netchaplain]

I don't question the way God chose to do things the way he did, as you do. I don't define omniscience or choose to look at omniscience as you do. It seems by what you stated that you believe that God continuously sees every second of the future from before he started creating on through the present and beyond. I don't see Gods omniscience as you do. I do believe God can choose to see every second of the future from the time before he started creating on through the present and beyond, I just don't believe that's What God did.

I agree that our understanding about omniscience is different and so it's completely acceptable that we need not debate it.

Thanks for your input, and God bless your Family!

 

[marks]

Hi, and appreciate your reply and interesting comments! I believe God's omniscience answers a lot of questions, so wouldn't it be more inquiring to ponder why God chose to orchestrate everything the way they are transpiring? It's not like He created man and hoped he wouldn't choose to sin, for in His foreknowledge He knew he would. Thus I see that He has already planned to use good and evil for the purpose of manifesting His glory through angels and man.

It's clear to me that God's intention was not for man to avoid sin because He knew they would!

Hi NC,

Verses like this one:

Ezekiel 30:23 "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"

. . . tell me that God doesn't want people to die in sin. The easiest way to avoid that is to not have sin. Now, I suppose it could be argued that while God doesn't want people do die in sin, that He also does not want people to know eternal life without knowing the death of sin first (not what I think, but it could be argued).

One might say that God's wish is for man to know the death of sin before knowing eternal life. But what then do we make of God's statement to Adam, You shall not eat of the fruit of That Tree?

How is this not disengenuous, or in some other way deceptive, if in Fact God actually wanted Adam to eat?

Much love!
Mark

 

[Helen]

Hi NC,

Verses like this one:

Ezekiel 30:23 "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"

. . . tell me that God doesn't want people to die in sin. The easiest way to avoid that is to not have sin. Now, I suppose it could be argued that while God doesn't want people do die in sin, that He also does not want people to know eternal life without knowing the death of sin first (not what I think, but it could be argued).

One might say that God's wish is for man to know the death of sin before knowing eternal life. But what then do we make of God's statement to Adam, You shall not eat of the fruit of That Tree?

How is this not disengenuous, or in some other way deceptive, if in Fact God actually wanted Adam to eat?

Much love!
Mark

Oh I don't have a problem with the 'set-up' of Adam. For I too believe it was.. If it wasn't, then why put that tree in the Garden, and why put the Serpent in it's midst?

It was all LOVE!!


The Lamb wasn't slain from before the world " just in case"...it was all part of the Divine Plan.
God dropped Adam in, so that He could lift all humanity which came via Adam out. He dropped him in,... for YOU to be included!

Anyway...just my two cents...

Be blessed...H