Original Sin

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

(1) The word "lucifer" does not appear in either the hebrew or greek. It DOES appear in the Latin Vulgate and the KJV. Lucifer is a latin translation for haylel which was the name for the planet Venus.
(2) But all that is irrelevant for Isaiah 14 declares "lucifer" was the king of Babylon, not some fallen angelic choir director.
(3) Genesis 2 speaks of the nachash (serpent). It says nothing of the devil, satan, or Lucifer. Paul spoke of the serpent as well but did not teach the serpent was Satan or that it was possessed by the devil.
(4) Perhaps you believe there is a literal seed of the serpent which persecuted Christ and which are literally, physically descendants of the devil?

(1) OK, putting the name "lucifer" to the side; do you prefer another name in lieu?

(2) So you are using a literal (natural) reading of Isa. 14?

(3) Another "literal" (natural) reading?

(4) No, I do not follow W. Branham...never did.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sure.
Well, not totally. Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. What does that say?
1Ti 2:14 KJV And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Granted, it may simply mean that the devil knew better than to go to Adam so went to the woman. And that would mean the devil knew the woman could actually tempt him more successfully than he could as the serpent.
Right.
Amen, I've always believed that.
Yes.
I agree.
Okay. You just made a huge unjustified leap right there. Nothing about what you said that we agree upon earlier draws this as a conclusion.
Are you are saying man will get a PHYSICAL body but it will only be temporary? I am confident the new body is physical in 1 Cor 15. So, how in the world does anything you said before this point imply man was not intended to remain physically on the earth?
No, man did not have the Spirit in him when he was created. I believe that would have happened had he eaten of the fruit of life. Not before.
Now, the presence of the forbidden tree lets us know there was a test, Sin was in existence. God knew the serpent would come, but he told Adam what was His will.
But none of that implies anything about whether or not God intended man to remain physical.
And nothing you stated about Man created by the Word with God's Spirit in Him does either.
Man was not created with God's Spirit.
And abiding in God is not available only if man has no physical. We're in Christ now!
So, you seem to have some HUGE gaps here over which you make huge leaps of assumption, in all due respect.
Now , I might be wrong, but your points do not prove that.

I must apologize for not finishing the post: To resume...

I am not trying to draw any conclusion(s): just putting info to let you know where I stand;

I did not touch upon a "temporary" physical body;

I said, implying creation, that man was created by God's word; and also touched upon the resurrected Church, which WILL HAVE God's Spirit;

Sin WAS NOT YET in existence, iniquity was.

Correct, no implication as to man's "physical" body after the resurrection;

I believe man was created a spirit being by God's WORD;

Again, I am not trying to come to any conclusion through assumptions;

YES, your reading of my post assumes facts.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Meaning, God did not create a deteriorating universe. It became subject to corruption due to sin.

"And the earth was without form (in confusion), and void (absent of God), and
darkness (iniquity) was upon the face of the deep." This is all before Adam sinned!

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Well, again, no part of us can be eternal since we had a beginning.
But death did not come except after sin. So we cannot say everything created has an ending. Ending is death and death came only by sin. Romans 5:12 explains it all.

Is God not eternal? Is God more concerned with our beginning, or with our end
(see Job)?

Yes: death came after sin; however, the Law of Sin and death was was enacted
before Adam sinned! (Gen. 2:17)

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think your missing my actual questions.

The bodies will be spiritual and quite physical, though. Physical bodies are made for physical abodes. It's rather simple. Back where Adam fell from. Back to where things were before sin came.

Beloved, that's where you lost me, and I seemed to be giving you the run-around.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

I must apologize for not finishing the post: To resume...

I am not trying to draw any conclusion(s): just putting info to let you know where I stand;

I did not touch upon a "temporary" physical body;

I said, implying creation, that man was created by God's word; and also touched upon the resurrected Church, which WILL HAVE God's Spirit;

Sin WAS NOT YET in existence, iniquity was.

Correct, no implication as to man's "physical" body after the resurrection;

I believe man was created a spirit being by God's WORD;

Again, I am not trying to come to any conclusion through assumptions;

YES, your reading of my post assumes facts.

So the body like JESUS resurrected with is not going to be what we resurrect with, although Philippians 3:21 says so?

And the change in 1 Cor 15 is not going to see this mortal boldly altered to an immortal physical body?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Beloved, that's where you lost me, and I seemed to be giving you the run-around.

We need to do a study together on 1 Cor 15. You seem to be of the mistaken notion that spiritual is opposite of physical and not the opposite of natural as 1 Corinthians stated.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

)1) So the body like JESUS resurrected with is not going to be what we resurrect with, although Philippians 3:21 says so?
(2) And the change in 1 Cor 15 is not going to see this mortal boldly altered to an immortal physical body?

OK. When I read "physical" body, I envision a "natural" body of flesh.

(1)Phillipians describes the resurrected body as GLORIOUS: even "...the glory that
I had with you before the world was."
When the WORD was made flesh, it took on a "veil" (Heb. 10: 20) of flesh. That's
all the body was, a veil whereby the Lamb could be sacrificed to give us access into
the Holiest Place. The Lord Jesus is to keep that body until he has subdued all things,
including death;

(2) Let me preface this by saying that the kingdom of the son will be forever.
The resurrection will give us "glorious bodies": not physical (natural), but SPIRITUAL. When
all things, and death, are subdued the WORD will be subject to the Father and be as from
the beginning: in its former glory. The Church, as sons and daughters, will also partake
of that same glory and maintain (inherit) the kingdom of the Son!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

OK. When I read "physical" body, I envision a "natural" body of flesh.

(1)Phillipians describes the resurrected body as GLORIOUS: even "...the glory that
I had with you before the world was."
When the WORD was made flesh, it took on a "veil" (Heb. 10: 20) of flesh. That's
all the body was, a veil whereby the Lamb could be sacrificed to give us access into
the Holiest Place. The Lord Jesus is to keep that body until he has subdued all things,
including death;

(2) Let me preface this by saying that the kingdom of the son will be forever.
The resurrection will give us "glorious bodies": not physical (natural), but SPIRITUAL. When
all things, and death, are subdued the WORD will be subject to the Father and be as from
the beginning: in its former glory. The Church, as sons and daughters, will also partake
of that same glory and maintain (inherit) the kingdom of the Son!

Brother, it simply says our bodies will be fashioned like His body. And look at the body that came out of the grave to see what that means. It appeared out of nowhere in the locked room where the disciples gathered after the resurrection. It ascended up into heaven. It was very physical since Jesus distinctly said a spirit does not have flesh and bones as He did after the resurrection.

Physical does not mean natural, brother. I did an intensive word study on natural and spiritual. They are used in the same book to describe SPIRITUAL MEAT AND DRINK. Moses gave them manna and water from a rock. Spiritual meat and drink. Were they not physical? That is chapter 10.

1Co 10:3-4 KJV And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Chapter 2 shows both words NATURAL and SPIRITUAL. They are not describing composite material. There is the natural MAN and the spiritual MAN.

1Co 2:14-15 KJV But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Does that mean the person is non-physical if he is spiritual and the natural man is physical? Of course not.

It means what INSPIRES.

The word natural refers to the common law of nature. Physics. Natural things cannot be immortal. Nature disallows that. Spiritual simply means SUPERnatural. Motivated by the SPIRIT instead of nature.

Jesus' body was supernatural. It was therefore spiritual. Why? Because it was not physical? Far from it. It was very physical but by no means natural. He proved that.

So there is an assumption you made without realizing it. NATURAL DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICAL.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

(1) OK, putting the name "lucifer" to the side; do you prefer another name in lieu?

(2) So you are using a literal (natural) reading of Isa. 14?

(3) Another "literal" (natural) reading?

(4) No, I do not follow W. Branham...never did.

Isaiah 13 begins a prophecy against Babylon. It speaks of Babylon's overthrow at the hands of the Medes (v. 17). The next chapter continues the prophecy saying Israel will be restored to the land as a result. And then 14:4 says in that day you will take up this PROVERB against the King of Babylon.

Thus it is a proverb and it concerns the king of Babylon. I take it for what it says it is, a proverb against the king of Babylon that dealt with Babylon's overthrow by the Medes. Vs.22 and 25 again confirm this.

In regards to Genesis 2 again I simply taie it for what it says.

I see no need or justification for going beyond what is written. If we are free to make scripture mean things that are not anywhere in the text we are free to believe ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, like "God is a trinity" or anything else we might dream up!

I wasn't thinking of Branham, I was thinking of the Talmud which teaches the serpent had relations with Eve and had a literal offspring (descended from Cain).