Then neither would the very elect. They choose to come through the flesh to accomplish His purpose. They have a job to do, here on earth, in the flesh. They have a message to teach.
First Earth Age.
- Thread starter Christina
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Then neither would the very elect. They choose to come through the flesh to accomplish His purpose. They have a job to do, here on earth, in the flesh. They have a message to teach.
True. But the same could be said of the arch angels...they too have a job to do....a much bigger job than given to us but it need be accomplished in their spiritual bodies.
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
In the previous post I mentioned that perhaps angels weren't considered men...but I was wrong.....
Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
If Gabriel is an archangel then "man" applies although it appears to have a different definition than a normal man. Oh well, one day we'll know.
Dan 9:21 yea, while I am speaking in prayer, then that one Gabriel, whom I had seen in vision at the commencement, being caused to fly swiftly, is coming unto me at the time of the evening present.
The Hebrew does not denote "Man" as defining a species or race. The Word man is also not used in all translations, but to Danial, Gabriel did not appear as a reindeer or anything that does not resemble a man. I would not read much more into that, as all accounts of Angels, for the most part appear human.
Jesus Is Lord.
The Hebrew does not denote "Man" as defining a species or race. The Word man is also not used in all translations, but to Danial, Gabriel did not appear as a reindeer or anything that does not resemble a man. I would not read much more into that, as all accounts of Angels, for the most part appear human.
Jesus Is Lord.
Selene
New Member
Hello,
From what I understand, reincarnation was never a Christian belief. It is Buddhist. The Buddhist usually cremate their dead because to them the soul is more important than the body. They believe that the soul or spirit of a person will find itself in another body. Christians, on the other hand, bury their dead because the body is just as important as the soul. The body and soul are one just as the Father and the Son are one despite that the Son has a human nature.
When Christ died and was resurrected, His resurrection was both body and soul. He resurrected in a glorified body. On Christ's second coming, our bodies will also be resurrected. It will change into a glorified body. The spiritual beings that existed in Heaven were the angels. And angels were never created in the image of God. Only man was created in His image. Everything else is a reflection of God's goodness. Angels can appear in human form, but in essence, they are NOT human. When God said that He knew us before we existed, that is because He is the All-knowing God who created us. He also knows those who will be born 10 years from now. He knows everything and all future events.
As for the early Christians, they never supported reincarnation and there are many writings showing this. New agers often say that Origen supported reincarnation, but they give no evidence showing it. Origen was, in fact, against reincarnation. Below is what Origen stated in AD 229:
From Origen: "[Scripture says] ‘And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" and he said, "I am not"’ [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ‘If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ‘Are you Elijah?’—‘I am not’? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah" (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).
"As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property [slaves], as ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ [1 Cor. 14:32] and ‘The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha’ [2 Kgs. 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called ‘Elijah who is to come’" (ibid.).
"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless" (ibid.).
"Someone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, ‘This is Elijah who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John’s case worked in him works of baptism and teaching—for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]—but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents" (Commentary on Matthew 10:20 [A.D. 248]).
"Now the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, ‘Lord, help me,’ but he answered and said, ‘It is not possible to take the children’s bread and cast it to the little dogs.’ . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture" (ibid., 11:17).
"In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1).
From what I understand, reincarnation was never a Christian belief. It is Buddhist. The Buddhist usually cremate their dead because to them the soul is more important than the body. They believe that the soul or spirit of a person will find itself in another body. Christians, on the other hand, bury their dead because the body is just as important as the soul. The body and soul are one just as the Father and the Son are one despite that the Son has a human nature.
When Christ died and was resurrected, His resurrection was both body and soul. He resurrected in a glorified body. On Christ's second coming, our bodies will also be resurrected. It will change into a glorified body. The spiritual beings that existed in Heaven were the angels. And angels were never created in the image of God. Only man was created in His image. Everything else is a reflection of God's goodness. Angels can appear in human form, but in essence, they are NOT human. When God said that He knew us before we existed, that is because He is the All-knowing God who created us. He also knows those who will be born 10 years from now. He knows everything and all future events.
As for the early Christians, they never supported reincarnation and there are many writings showing this. New agers often say that Origen supported reincarnation, but they give no evidence showing it. Origen was, in fact, against reincarnation. Below is what Origen stated in AD 229:
From Origen: "[Scripture says] ‘And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" and he said, "I am not"’ [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ‘If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ‘Are you Elijah?’—‘I am not’? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah" (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).
"As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property [slaves], as ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ [1 Cor. 14:32] and ‘The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha’ [2 Kgs. 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called ‘Elijah who is to come’" (ibid.).
"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless" (ibid.).
"Someone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, ‘This is Elijah who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John’s case worked in him works of baptism and teaching—for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]—but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents" (Commentary on Matthew 10:20 [A.D. 248]).
"Now the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, ‘Lord, help me,’ but he answered and said, ‘It is not possible to take the children’s bread and cast it to the little dogs.’ . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture" (ibid., 11:17).
"In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1).
The above clip is from the very first few lines of the very first post in this thread.
When someone tries to claim several earth ages in order to support flawed theology I simply ask them to see what the second last chapter of revelation has to say about the subject.
..................................
Revelation 21:
[sup]..........................................
1[/sup]Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. [sup]2[/sup]I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. [sup]3[/sup]And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. [sup]4[/sup]He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
.................................................................................................................................................
Be cautious around strange teachings.
We are still on the first earth.
Best regards. Martin W.
With all due respect Martain the earth and an age are not the same thing try using a concordance to look the differnt words
before one passes judgemnt one should check all the information so know what they speaking of
2 pter3:5 But it is hid from them willing this thing, that heavens were before, and the earth of water was standing by water, by God's word [that heavens were first, and the earth of water and by water being, or standing, together by God's word];
6 by which [things] that same world cleansed, then by water perished.
7 But the heavens that now be, and the earth, be kept by the same word, and be reserved to fire into the day of doom and perdition of wicked men. [Forsooth the heavens that now be, and the earth, by the same word put again, be kept to fire into the day of doom and perdition of unpious men.]
Did noahs flood affect the heavens that were before no of coures not so this not Noahs flood
So we have a heaven and earth that was a heaven and earth that is and a new heaven earth that will be we have
these are ages God only created the earth once
he has made it void .,destroyed it with water and he will melt rudiments ..element with fire
now you believe what you like
Not really following this thread, just perusing it. Paul was taken to the third heaven and saw things he wasn't allowed to say. John had a glimpse of the second heaven as recorded in the Unveiling of Jesus Christ. We are currently involved with the first heaven(s) and the present creation that came out of the disruption recorded in Gen 1:2. These are the three heavens of the Scriptures.
fivesense
Fivesense:
Are you talking about heavens 1,2,3 as 3 different ones (Heavens as time periods?), and not 1,2,3 heavens as in layers? (Stacked Levels)
I have aways assumed layers, when Paul talked about the 3rd heaven, I just assumed that he flew by the first two...........
Jesus Is Lord.
Are you talking about heavens 1,2,3 as 3 different ones (Heavens as time periods?), and not 1,2,3 heavens as in layers? (Stacked Levels)
I have aways assumed layers, when Paul talked about the 3rd heaven, I just assumed that he flew by the first two...........
Jesus Is Lord.
You are confusing the levels of heaven with the ages they have nothing to do with each other if heaven is dived in levels which seem to be the case what does that have to do with us or the earth or any age ? This goes to rightly diving
3 levels of heaven or 7 or 12 what thats got to do with We arent in hewaven we are on earth ...If you want to look in to heaven levels I suggest you study Kabbala.
I don't think that anyone above adequately addressed your point. So, I will add my two cents worth.
If one checks out the word 'first' in Greek, one can see that it does not necessarily lock itself into the interpretation you gave it -
πρῶτος
prōtos
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.
Probably, a better rendering instead of 'first' would be 'former'. That way, the scripture would be consistent with the reference to three ages in 2 Pet. 3.
[email protected]
Choir Loft
Next thing you know, we'll be treated to an exposition about the "age of acquarius" and how it's God's plan to blah blah blah.
For those that like to correlate Bible with science, the end of the first earth age was the end of the Pleistocene -- 14,000 years ago. No land mammal crossed this bridge in time.
You are talking about ages of the Earth in this forum and the six-days-creation. So read this: the age of the Earth can be calculated from the Flood-data by admitting that there have been several local floods and a single global one. Each of these floods Genesis 7-8 is referring to.
The most recent flood dated at about 2500 BC was a political one: Semitic people coming down from the mountains "flooding" the plain of the two rivers like tidal waves and successively crumbling the Sumerian empire.
The next flood occurred on the bottom of the Persian Gulf during the slow sea level rise. The date of this flood can also be calculated from the ages of the patriarchs simply by summing them up. One obtains 9500 years ago, which is exactly the date when the upper part of the Persian Gulf, where the Euphrates, Tigris, Pishon and Gihon merge (the last two rivers are dry now), was flooded.
The 2.88 million years of the Pleistocene (also calculated from the patriarch's ages) can be considered another flood time, which yields a scaling factor = 2.88 million years/377 days where 377 is the number of Flood days. Multiplying it with the 1663 years from Adam to the Flood leads us to the formation of the solar system 4.6 billion years ago, which is a 157-days-event in that the solar wind dried up the early Earth according to the wind of Genesis 8:1-4. From there the date of the formation of the Milky Way, also a 157-days-event, about 8 billion years ago can be calculated as well as the big bang 13.7 billion years ago using recursively the same formula.
This is not all. The dates given by Genesis 7-8 allow pointing to the formation of the Earth, in particular to what is discussed here: a hot atmosphere containing a lot of water vapour about 4 billion years ago. By cooling down, it rained out giving birth to a primordial ocean recovering the whole planet at a certain stage. This was the only global Flood. From this ocean peaked out cratons, then the supercontinents Columbia and Rodinia, to what is referred to by the landing of the ark on the Mount Ararat on the 157th day, the freeing of the other mountains on the 231th day and the dove coming back with an olive branch on the 285th day.
This may sound a bit strange for some. It's because it's very short. For more details go to historycycles.org/flood.html.
The most recent flood dated at about 2500 BC was a political one: Semitic people coming down from the mountains "flooding" the plain of the two rivers like tidal waves and successively crumbling the Sumerian empire.
The next flood occurred on the bottom of the Persian Gulf during the slow sea level rise. The date of this flood can also be calculated from the ages of the patriarchs simply by summing them up. One obtains 9500 years ago, which is exactly the date when the upper part of the Persian Gulf, where the Euphrates, Tigris, Pishon and Gihon merge (the last two rivers are dry now), was flooded.
The 2.88 million years of the Pleistocene (also calculated from the patriarch's ages) can be considered another flood time, which yields a scaling factor = 2.88 million years/377 days where 377 is the number of Flood days. Multiplying it with the 1663 years from Adam to the Flood leads us to the formation of the solar system 4.6 billion years ago, which is a 157-days-event in that the solar wind dried up the early Earth according to the wind of Genesis 8:1-4. From there the date of the formation of the Milky Way, also a 157-days-event, about 8 billion years ago can be calculated as well as the big bang 13.7 billion years ago using recursively the same formula.
This is not all. The dates given by Genesis 7-8 allow pointing to the formation of the Earth, in particular to what is discussed here: a hot atmosphere containing a lot of water vapour about 4 billion years ago. By cooling down, it rained out giving birth to a primordial ocean recovering the whole planet at a certain stage. This was the only global Flood. From this ocean peaked out cratons, then the supercontinents Columbia and Rodinia, to what is referred to by the landing of the ark on the Mount Ararat on the 157th day, the freeing of the other mountains on the 231th day and the dove coming back with an olive branch on the 285th day.
This may sound a bit strange for some. It's because it's very short. For more details go to historycycles.org/flood.html.
the issue that i present is not the earth's age, but the age of MAN. all theologians agree that the date of the biblical adam can be traced to approximately 4000bc.
therefore any scientific or paleantolical findings that predate that seem to be constru ed by fundemental christians as anti-biblical.
therefore any scientific or paleantolical findings that predate that seem to be constru ed by fundemental christians as anti-biblical.
Yes it is true that according to the ages of the patriarchs the biblical Adam was born around 4000 BC and that therefore a lot of fundamental Christians close their eyes and dont admit any scientific data not corresponding to this date. On the one hand, I honor such a strong faith. Without this, the Church would probably be death since centuries succombing to the attacks of all the numerous pseudo-scientific affirmations since Darwin and his biased theory. But on the other hand, such a blind faith also means to take the word of God as one-dimensional, while it can clearly be shown that the Bible texts often have several meanings. This is especially the case for Adam, the patriarch's ages and the Flood. Thus, the ages refer to an event in 4000 BC, but also to others, of which the dates can be calculated in a natural and straigthforward manner, especially that of the appearence of homo sapiens about 200'000 years ago and of other steps in evolution million years ago. Just go on historycycles.org/flood.html and read it thoroughly.
Similar threads
