Fulfilled Theology - Preterist

Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology

Thanks for the opportunity to coment!

   As to the number in the Garden during Adam's creation, we cannot question other than a plurality present.

Genesis 1:26 clearly states a plurality in the "us, our, and them' in scriptural account. By the way, as author, in The

Great Deception, I laid out the dimensions of Heaven and Earth, to within a foot in all directions. Additionally, Eden encompassed these same boundaries. To the East in Eden, could be anywhere east of central Heaven and Earth.

Guess where that would place the Garden? No, not along the Euphrates! Donald possesses the map.

   Hope this might stir some interest and discussion.

Ben Winter

 

 

 

 

c

Views: 680

Comment

You need to be a member of Fulfilled Theology - Preterist to add comments!

Join Fulfilled Theology - Preterist

Comment by Taffy on May 31, 2012 at 8:57am

Hi Rivers, in my opinion you miss the point entirely.  But we're both entitled to our views.  Let the reader review our posts and decide for himself.  I've promised Ben that I'll say no more about it in his thread.

 

Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Comment by RiversOfEden on May 31, 2012 at 8:52am

 

Hi Taffy,

 

Your point about John 5:37 doesn't work.   Paul plainly stated that Jesus "existed in the form of God" (Philippians 2:5) and that Jesus was "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15).  Perhaps you are unware that the word used for "form" in John 5:37 is not the same one that is used of "(Adam) the image of God" (1 Corinthians 11:7) or "(Jesus) the image of God" in Colossians 1:15.

 

When we interpret scripture, it's important to draw conclusions that take into account all of the evidence.   The apostles affirmed that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16).   On the other hand, they also understood that Jesus "existed in the form of God" (Philippians 2:5) and that Jesus was "the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of His essence" (Hebrews 1:3).

 

The idea of an "image" in biblical Hebrew is that it presents the physical form of something else.  The "image" is not the actual entity that it represents.   Thus, Adam and Jesus were both the "image" of God (in physical form) and yet God Himself remained "invisible" (1 Timothy 6:16).   One could certainly see the "image" of God (male human form) of Adam or Jesus without the "invisible" God actually apprearing.

 

Your interpretation of John 5:37 also makes no sense because Jesus also said that the Jews "(had) never heard God's voice" in the same verse, and yet there are numerous times in the Bible where the Israelites "heard" God speaking audibly.   Therefore, it's more reasonable to conclude that the "hearing" and "seeing" in John 5:37 were a figurative way of saying that the unbelieving Jews were not "understanding" what God was like (because they didn't pay attention to the words or actions of Jesus).

 

For example, the same Greek word for "form" that is used in John 5:37 is also used figuratively in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 as "appearance (form) of evil."   This shows that the word could be used of how one "perceives" someone's intentions or works (rather than referring to seeing the physical form).

 

 

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Comment by Taffy on May 30, 2012 at 11:22pm
Hi Ben, I get your point about "Angels" and it's very similar to my own.
 
And your right.  I won't say anymore about the "Image of God" here.  Rivers will NEVER understand this just like he'll NEVER understand the "Law of God".
 
I'll leave him to curly locks, talking snakes and "tablets of stone".  These he does understand.
 
Take care, Taffy.
Preterism (with Taffy) ] 
Comment by Taffy on May 30, 2012 at 11:16pm

Hi Rivers, Jesus said, "And the Father Himself, who sent Me (PHYSICAL Jesus; Heb 2:14), has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.." (Jn 5:37).  

 

If Jesus/man/woman/angels 'represented' God physically then every one of those we read of looked in the mirror, saw their wife/husband, an angel or Jesus, they WOULD have seen God's "form" because they, you claim, were but His physical "image".  Your error makes Jesus a liar.

 

In Christ and His "gospel", NOT the "tongue of God is being revealed.." (although this may indeed be the case for you..lol), "but the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God is being revealed from faith to faith.." (Rom 1:17).  

 

And as the "faithful" followed the LORD's "example" and "beheld His glory" they were being "transformed into the SAME IMAGE (NOT from hipbone to earlobe as some kind of physical Star Wars clones of Him so that no-one recognised them anymore!), but "from glory to glory.." (2 Cor 3:18).  "For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of RIGHTEOUSNESS exceeds much more in glory.." (2 Cor 3:9).

 

Let Paul have the last word on your folly when he contrasted the "old man" (Adam) with the "new man" (Jesus);

 

"put on the new man (NOT "new" eyeballs and finger-nails!) which was created according to God (just like Gen 1:26) in true  RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS.." (Eph 4:24).  

 

By doing so they would bear God's "image" even as Adam had (Gen 1:26, Ps 8:5).

 
Cheers, Taffy.
Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Comment by Bennie Winter on May 30, 2012 at 3:30pm

Gentlemen:

If I might: I think mankind has a tendency to read definitions complimentary to his own mindset. I see nothing special about angels except their habit of informing or delivering messages to another being -- even if it involves talking to a mule. Nowhere in the Greek definition, can one find 'angel' to mean anything other than mere messenger. If we adhere to the biblical definition, all the prophets and apostles, yes and other expositors of the word (New Testament authors), meet the biblical definition of angel. Riverofeden, Taffy, and yours truly, if we do not invent language: we are angels in the very essence of biblical meaning.

Not a mere spirit, angels were flesh and blood -- with the same passions, appetites, and unholy body functions as other human beings.  The only thing to set an angel apart from others gathered around the campfire was their ability to deliver messages.

I am wondering where this thread is headed? What does a woman's long hair have to do with a discussion of angels or messengers? lol No, I do not see the 'us, our, and we' as a spiritual host but as people producing a progeny called Adam -- where the first covenant was enacted. (That's not in the Bible either!) But this conclusion is the only sensible solution to our debate here ongoing -- if we adhere to the draconian limitations of language as it emanated through the voice of Moses -- he being an angel, of course, in a message delivery capacity.

Best Regards,

Ben

 

Comment by RiversOfEden on May 30, 2012 at 1:09pm

 

 

Taffy,

 

The word "symbol" doesn't appear in the text of 1 Corinthians 11:10.  The phrase "on her head" corresponds to "on his head" (1 Corinthians 11:4) which is explicitly referring to "hair" in both cases in this context (1 Corinthians 11:5-7).  You're adding language into the intepretation of this passage that has nothing to do with what is actually in the context.

 

There is also no passage saying that the "physical image" of Adam and Jesus has anything to do with the "righteousness" of God.   This is another example of an assumption you are making without any exegetical support.   We can't draw reasonable conclusions from unsubstantiated assumptions.

 

Your interpretation is worthless unless you can prove that the Hebrew word for "image" in Genesis 1:26 means "righteousness."   I've looked at all 80 uses of the word "image" in the biblical Hebrew text and I can't find any passage that anyone would translate with "righteousness."   In fact, almost every occurence of the word is explictly referring to an "carved idol" or a "statue" (which are physical representations of something else).   Substituing the word "righteousness" in all these verses makes absolutely no sense.

 

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

 

Comment by Taffy on May 30, 2012 at 11:57am

How about skipping back to the other thread and answer my outstanding questions there?

 

Cheers, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Comment by Taffy on May 30, 2012 at 11:55am

Rivers, I repeat, her physical "long hair" was indeed her "glory", which was the physical "SYMBOL of her authority" (1 Cor 11:10), just as Adam and Jesus were the physical "image" of God (Gen 1:26, Col 1:15).  The visible "image" of the "invisible", "righteous" God.  Your point about Rom 1:23 is not relevant to this.

 

Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Comment by RiversOfEden on May 30, 2012 at 11:45am

Taffy,

 

Paul plainly stated that a woman's "glory" is her "long hair" (1 Corinthians 11:15).   It had nothing to do with "attributes of the spirit."  In fact, if you read the text of 1 Timothy 2:9, you'll see that a woman's "braided hair" was also associated with her propriety and obedience to the Law of Moses (Numbers 5:18).

 

A woman was required by the Law of Moses to wear her hair braided on top of her head (as a covering, 1 Corinthians 11:6; 1 Corinthians 11:15).  The Greek word for "uncovered" that Paul used (1 Corinthians 11:5) is the one used for "loosing her hair" in the LXX where a woman accused of adultery was brought before the priest in shame (Numbers 5:18).

 

The scriptures you quote about "the image of God" say absolutely nothing about "righteousness."   The Hebrew word for "image" is used about 80 times in the OT and always refers to "physical form."  It never refers to "righteousness" or "will" or "love."   There's isn't even a single occurence of the word "image" in Hebrew that is used as a figure of speech or metaphor (like you are attempting to explain it).

 

Paul described the Hebrew use of the term in Romans 1:23 where he contrasts the "glory of God" with "images" of "mortal birds, animals, and insects".  The people were worshipping actual "idols" and "statues" of earthly creatures (not their "righteousness" or "will" or "love").

 

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Comment by Taffy on May 30, 2012 at 11:33am

Hi Rivers, her "long hair" was indeed her "glory", which was the physical "SYMBOL of her authority" (1 Cor 11:10).  You see her curly locks clear enough (just like you do the "tablets of stone") but NOT the "symbol" or "authority".  This kind of approach is what makes you "err" in many things, e.g. the "Law of God".

 
In Christ the "righteousness of God" was "revealed" from "faith to faith" (Rom 1:173:2110:4, etc).  That's why even though God is "invisble" (1 Tim 1:17) Christ could say, " He who has seen Me has seen the Father.." (Jn 14:9).

 

Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

This is an open forum to discuss all areas of Systematic Theology which it does not agree with the Church Traditions.

© 2019   Created by Donald.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service