- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
The words are literally “of earth” and “of heaven”. The made can be implied in some cases with the Koine Greek word translated earthly.
The earthly and heavenly are opposite side of the same coin. If your are speaking of a body composed of earth then its opposite is a body composed of heaven. If it is instead it is a body that is “incomplete without “the heavenly” then its opposite is ” referring to the impact of heaven's influence on the body”
A couple of related comments. First is that I don't know if heavenly ever means “made of heaven” and second is that I think that “temporal, passing away; transient” is the same as “incomplete without “the heavenly”
This one is good but the “heavenly” in the v47 does not appear in other versions that I know of.
1 Corinthians 15:47-49
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)47 The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly.
48 Such as is the earthly, such also are the earthly: and such as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly.
49 Therefore as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly.You should be aware that soulical also has a meaning that is equivalent to “incomplete without “the heavenly”. Of course fleshly also has an equivalent meaning but it is not used in these verses or the previous ones. Spiritual on the other hand has a meaning equivalent to “” referring to the impact of heaven's influence on the body”
Note: Some interesting reading on this subject is pages 15-16 from the book
Letters, Volume 5 (204–270) (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 32).
Kerwin,
Think it out:
1. Was Adam originally made by God “comprised of dirt”?
2. Was Adam originally made by God as “incomplete without the heavenly”?
3. Was Adam originally made as a “temporal, passing away, transient” being?
Which one fits the CONTEXT of what Paul was teaching?
Mike,
The first Adam was a body without a soul. That body was made of the earth that was at that time not subject to frustration. The second Adam is from heaven and was breathed in the nostrils of the first Adam and he gave life to the first Adam.
adam is composed of body, soul, and spirit.
1) Adam's body was formed out of the earth.
2) Adam was not complete until his heavenly self was added.
3) Adam's body became “temporal, passing away, transient” when he sinned.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 16 2014,04:16) Hi KW,
Heavenly self?
Nick,In Romans 7:22 it is called the inner man.
Hi KW,
Yes the breath of God GAVE man soul and spirit.
That is the extent of man's heavenliness.
The spirit returns to God at deathNick,
Yes! Paul is using that to teach about the resurrection but some are misled by the teaching that the last man is the Lord from heaven and that Lord is Jesus.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2014,15:33) Mike, The first Adam was a body without a soul. That body was made of the earth that was at that time not subject to frustration. The second Adam is from heaven and was breathed in the nostrils of the first Adam and he gave life to the first Adam.
adam is composed of body, soul, and spirit.
1) Adam's body was formed out of the earth.
2) Adam was not complete until his heavenly self was added.
3) Adam's body became “temporal, passing away, transient” when he sinned.
Oh brother!
1. Agreed. And what is Paul explaining in 1 Cor 15?
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”
Clearly, the teaching is about the difference between the BODIES we have now, and the BODIES we will have.
2. Kerwin, don't all of us already have that “heavenly self” added – just like Adam did? Yes. So that understanding doesn't fit the context, where Paul is describing the DIFFERENCE between the image we all have already borne, and the image we have not already borne, but someday will.
3. The words “when he sinned” do not align with Paul's words, “The first man Adam was made a living soul”.
Adam wasn't made a living soul “WHEN he sinned”, right? So Paul is apparently talking about how Adam was made ORIGINALLY, right?
And was Adam ORIGINALLY made “temporal, passing away, transient”?
Kerwin, once again you are showing that you are skilled at finding “an answer for everything”. But once again, those “answers” really don't amount to anything, nor do they fit the context of the passage. They are merely “hail Mary's” – to use football terminology.
Mike,
First, 1 Corinthians 15:50 does not say that only spiritual bodies may enter the kingdom of heaven. In fact there is no where in Scripture that states that. It is only taught by men.
Second, 1 Corinthians 15:44 is not talking about a body composed of spirit not is it talking a body composed of soul as to claim one is true it is reasonable to claim the other is true and none seriously believes the mortal body is composed of soul.
As we sit if you claim the mortal body is called “earthly” because it is made of earth then you must also claim the heavenly body is made of heaven. On that point I am not necessary disagreeing as there is a Paradise with the tree of life within and I do not currently see it on earth. If you claim that heaven is composed of spirit I point out that you have no evidence to support and two there seems to be evidence to dispute it.
Your interpretation seems to have evolved from early translations that used a like flawed manuscript that had 1 Corinthians 15:47 declare “the second man is the Lord from heaven.” when the newer translations instead use manuscripts that state “the second man is from heaven.”
Paul spoke of a second man and labeled it the inner man in Romans 7:22 and it wages a war against the body who is clearly the outer man, the first man that is created of us all. He clearly states man in 47 though previously in 45 he stated Adam. Unless the context connects the two I do not see why the 47 is even talking about Adam's creation.
Mike,
I do not see where the context says the man in v47 is Adam. I do see that Paul states “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” is all written in Scripture. That is his premise and yet “the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” is not literally written in Scripture but it is instead derived from Genesis 2:7 by the application of logical reason directed by the Spirit of God.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2014,17:20) Second, 1 Corinthians 15:44 is not talking about a body composed of spirit not is it talking a body composed of soul as to claim one is true it is reasonable to claim the other is true and none seriously believes the mortal body is composed of soul.
Ahhh……… but what if you were to lose your ancient English word “soulical” – the definition to which you can't even find in a dictionary?What if you were to replace that nonsensical word with that synonym “fleshy” – like I showed you?
THEN would it make sense that Paul was distinguishing the FLESHY bodies we now have from the SPIRITUAL bodies those who dwell in heaven have?
See what you've done? Virtually every English Bible has “natural” in that verse – not “soulical”. But since YOU already know what you WANT Paul to have been teaching, you don't LIKE the word “natural” or “fleshy” there.
So you searched high and low, as usual, and found this “soulical” thing that we can't even rightly define, since no English dictionary even lists that as a word. And now that you've settled on “soulical” – since you didn't LIKE “natural” or “fleshy” – you have created your own dilemma.
You tell me that bodies cannot be made of soul. Well Kerwin, perhaps that's your first clue that “soulical” is NOT the proper translation.
Because bodies CAN be made of natural things. And fleshy things. And even heavenly things.
Now, I have brilliantly (
) laid out rebuttals to all of the three points in your previous post. I see you have not responded to those rebuttals. Why not?1. WAS Paul's teaching about the BODIES of those resurrected from the dead? YES or NO?
Didn't they ask, “With what kind of BODIES will they come?” What kind of answer would Paul give to that question?
Your claim: They will come with EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF BODY, but those bodies will be led by spirit instead of soul.
My claim: They will come with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KIND OF BODY.
Which makes more sense as an answer to the question they asked? Which one fits these words better: When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be.
2. Do all of us have the spirit of God from heaven animating us, just like Adam did? If so, doesn't that refute your understanding that the “first Adam” was the flesh body, and the “second Adam” was the breath (spirit) from heaven? YES or NO?
3. Your claim that “Adam's body became temporal, passing away, transient when he sinned“ doesn't fit the words, “The first man Adam was made a living soul”.
So, do you believe that Adam was originally MADE temporal, passing away, and transient? YES or NO?
Mike,
Whether soulical is in the dictionaries we have available is of not matter since it is in a translation of Scripture and another known religious figure who used it as well. It also happens to mean “of or belonging to the breath”.
As to the definition of the Koine Greek word meaning that the mortal body is composed of flesh that is absurd. None of the definitions say that though it has at least one definition in common with fleshly and so in that sense it is a synonym. For that reason there is not basis to interpret spiritual body as a body made of spirit.
Here are the definitions as laid out by the Blue Letter Bible Site.
1. of or belonging to breath
A. having the nature and characteristics of the breath
i. the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
B. governed by breath
i. the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion
Mike,
Quote 2. Do all of us have the spirit of God from heaven animating us, just like Adam did? If so, doesn't that refute your understanding that the “first Adam” was the flesh body, and the “second Adam” was the breath (spirit) from heaven? YES or NO? 3. Your claim that “Adam's body became temporal, passing away, transient when he sinned” doesn't fit the words, “The first man Adam was made a living soul”.
So, do you believe that Adam was originally MADE temporal, passing away, and transient? YES or NO?
I am saying that Paul used the creation of Adam to show that the heavenly came after the earthly and then switch to man in general which is why he started speaking of Adam and the Last Adam and finished up speaking of the first human and last human. He does not even say in verse 45 that the first Adam is earthly though he does say he was made a living soul. There is that root word soul once again.
Mike,
Yes, Paul is teaching what kind of bodies humanity will be raised in but he simply is not teaching what they will be composed of.
I am reluctant to answer the rest of your questions as I think you may choose not to deal with these points I have brought up because you find uncomfortable or something.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2014,00:38) As to the definition of the Koine Greek word meaning that the mortal body is composed of flesh that is absurd. None of the definitions say that though it has at least one definition in common with fleshly and so in that sense it is a synonym.
So the word most often translated as “natural” has “fleshy/fleshly” as a synonym , but it's “absurd” to think it has to do with flesh?And your word “soulical” is “scriptural”, because it is in one ancient English translation? The word “hell” is also in ancient English translations, Kerwin. Is the word hell “scriptural”?
No matter, because we have moved beyond that “soulical” nonsense anyway. We are now dealing with verse 47.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2014,00:49) Mike, Quote 2. Do all of us have the spirit of God from heaven animating us, just like Adam did? If so, doesn't that refute your understanding that the “first Adam” was the flesh body, and the “second Adam” was the breath (spirit) from heaven? YES or NO? I am saying that Paul used the creation of Adam to show that the heavenly came after the earthly and then switch to man in general which is why he started speaking of Adam and the Last Adam and finished up speaking of the first human and last human.
But “the heavenly” came to Adam WHILE he was a flesh being on earth, Kerwin. And Paul was talking to people who already WERE flesh beings on earth, right?And those people already consisted of both the “earthly” AND the “heavenly” already – just like Adam dwelled on earth with BOTH of those things, right?
So how would “heavenly” be an answer to “With what kind of bodies WILL the dead be raised?” ?
See? You can't say the “heavenly” part is what God breathed into Adam, since ALL OF US already have that part as well. Therefore, “heavenly” cannot be an answer to what we WILL be – since we ALREADY ARE that.
I await your response to point #1 and point #3…………. as well as an explanation to what I pointed out in this post.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2014,07:28) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2014,00:38) As to the definition of the Koine Greek word meaning that the mortal body is composed of flesh that is absurd. None of the definitions say that though it has at least one definition in common with fleshly and so in that sense it is a synonym.
So the word most often translated as “natural” has “fleshy/fleshly” as a synonym , but it's “absurd” to think it has to do with flesh?And your word “soulical” is “scriptural”, because it is in one ancient English translation? The word “hell” is also in ancient English translations, Kerwin. Is the word hell “scriptural”?
No matter, because we have moved beyond that “soulical” nonsense anyway. We are now dealing with verse 47.
Mike,If you think that is absurd then you probably do no realize that flesh is talking about the animalistic nature in Gal 5:16. In short both fleshly and soulical share the meaning “governed by mere human nature not by the Spirit of God” and are sometimes used to refer to that meaning in a spiritual context. In 1 Corinthians 15:44 it is a bodily context. Paul may even have purposely avoided using the word fleshly to avoid misunderstanding, though I have doubts he did.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2014,12:53) Mike, Yes, Paul is teaching what kind of bodies humanity will be raised in but he simply is not teaching what they will be composed of.
I am reluctant to answer the rest of your questions as I think you may choose not to deal with these points I have brought up because you find uncomfortable or something.
Mike,This contains my answer to #1.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2014,20:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2014,07:28) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2014,00:38) As to the definition of the Koine Greek word meaning that the mortal body is composed of flesh that is absurd. None of the definitions say that though it has at least one definition in common with fleshly and so in that sense it is a synonym.
So the word most often translated as “natural” has “fleshy/fleshly” as a synonym , but it's “absurd” to think it has to do with flesh?And your word “soulical” is “scriptural”, because it is in one ancient English translation? The word “hell” is also in ancient English translations, Kerwin. Is the word hell “scriptural”?
No matter, because we have moved beyond that “soulical” nonsense anyway. We are now dealing with verse 47.
Mike,If you think that is absurd then you probably do no realize that flesh is talking about the animalistic nature in Gal 5:16. In short both fleshly and soulical share the meaning “governed by mere human nature not by the Spirit of God” and are sometimes used to refer to that meaning in a spiritual context. In 1 Corinthians 15:44 it is a bodily context. Paul may even have purposely avoided using the word fleshly to avoid misunderstanding, though I have doubts he did.
Kerwin,YOU are the one who said it was “absurd” to think Paul was talking about “flesh”. And I pointed out to you that the word Paul used is a SYNONYM for “fleshy/fleshly”. So therefore it is NOT absurd to think Paul was talking about “flesh”.
Just because you chose “soulical” does not prohibit “flesh” from being, not only a perfectly sensible understanding, but the MOST sensible one.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2014,20:41) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2014,12:53) Mike, Yes, Paul is teaching what kind of bodies humanity will be raised in but he simply is not teaching what they will be composed of.
I am reluctant to answer the rest of your questions as I think you may choose not to deal with these points I have brought up because you find uncomfortable or something.
Mike,This contains my answer to #1.
Here is #1 again, Kerwin:1. WAS Paul's teaching about the BODIES of those resurrected from the dead? YES or NO?
Didn't they ask, “With what kind of BODIES will they come?” What kind of answer would Paul give to that question?
Your claim: They will come with EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF BODY, but those bodies will be led by spirit instead of soul.
My claim: They will come with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KIND OF BODY.
Which makes more sense as an answer to the question they asked? Which one fits these words better: When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be.
As you can see, your unsupported claim that “he simply is not teaching what they will be composed of” is nowhere close to an ANSWER to those points I made.
Do you believe Paul's answer was: The same exact kind of body you have now? If so, say so. If not, say so.
And if so, does that answer really fit these other words Paul said? When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be.
See Kerwin? YOU are saying it is the same exact kind of body, but that the former is led by one thing, and the latter will be led by something else.
And I'm trying my best to show you that your understanding doesn't fit the words Paul said. Are you able to SEE that your understanding doesn't fit?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
