Yuku free message boards

Here is a sampling of what Irenaeus wrote just after the death of John, refuting the teaching of the Gnostics. Enjoy!

Quote:

---

Against Heresies, Book V

Chapter XXXII.In that flesh in which the saints have suffered so many afflictions, they shall receive the fruits of their labours; especially since all creation waits for this, and God promises it to Abraham and his s

1. Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of Gods dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere Deum); and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards. For it is just that in that very creation in which they toiled or were afflicted, being proved in every way by suffering, they should receive the reward of their suffering; and that in the creation in which they were slain because of their love to God, in that they should be revived again; and that in the creation in which they endured servitude, in that they should reign. For God is rich in all things, and all things are His. It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous; and the apostle has made this plain in the Epistle to the Romans, when he thus speaks: For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; since the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. (Rom. viii. 19, etc.)

2. Thus, then, the promise of God, which He gave to Abraham, remains stedfast. For thus He said: Lift up thine eyes, and look from this place where now thou art, towards the north and south, and east and west. For all the earth which thou seest, I will give to thee and to thy seed, even for ever. (Gen. xiii. 13, 14). And again He says, Arise, and go through the length and breadth of the land, since I will give it unto thee; (Gen. xiii. 17). and [yet] he did not receive an inheritance in it, not even a footstep, but was always a stranger and a pilgrim therein. (Acts vii. 5; Heb. xi. 13.) And upon the death of Sarah his wife, when the Hittites were willing to bestow upon him a place where he might bury her, he declined it as a gift, but bought the burying-place (giving for it four hundred talents of silver) from Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite. (Gen. xxiii. 11). Thus did he await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: I will give this land to thy seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates. (Gen. xv. 13). If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham. (Luke iii. 8). Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. (Gal. iv. 28). And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal. iii. 16). And again, confirming his former words, he says, Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham. (Gal. iii. 6), etc. Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. v. 5).

---

Jerry,

Quote:

---

Do you deny that Paul is saying that at the rapture those dead in Christ will receive a spiritual body?:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:44).

---

I deny two specific things that you are asserting. First I deny that we will receive a spiritual body that is other than the same body that we now possess. Paul says, It is sown it is raised. Thus, right here in the verse you are quoting, the continuity is demonstrated. The first "it" must be the same thing as the second "it." The same body that is sown is the body that is raised. Secondly, I deny your definition of the word spiritual. Your definition is shown in your next question to me.

Quote:

---

If you believe what Paul said is true then explain how a "flesh and blood" body can be the same as a "spiritual body."

---

So it would seem you believe if something is spiritual, it cannot be physical, material, or flesh and blood. Somehow, spiritual and material are opposites of one another. So lets look a little more closely at this verse.

The term natural body in Greek is soma pseuchikon. The word soma means body. The word pseuche means soul. Thus, soma pseuchikon means literally, soulish body. The term spiritual body is soma pneumatikon. So right here in this verse, the contrast is NOT between material and immaterial. It is between soul and spirit. Now obviously, both the soul (pseuche) and the spirit (pneuma) are immaterial. Neither are composed of flesh. So Pauls point in contrasting pseuchikos with pneumatikos CANNOT be a contrast between physical and non-physical. What is the point then?

In my opinion, the point is that our bodies at present, like the animals, possess life that can potentially be lost (pseuche). But when they are raised through the operation of the Spirit, they will possess life that is perpetual and cannot be lost. That is the difference between soma pseuchikon and soma pneumatikon.

Furthermore, a quick search in the New Testament on the word pneumatikos, (spiritual) easily demonstrates that your definition (non-physical, not composed of flesh, immaterial) cannot be correct. Here is a sampling of passages. In this first one, pneumatikos is again contrasted with pseuchikos.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural [pseuchikos] man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual [pneumatikos] judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

Obviously, the contrast here between the natural man and the spiritual man is not a contrast between one man who is composed of flesh and blood and one who is not. Both of them are. Heres another simple example.

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual [pneumatikos] restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

Is Paul calling for those in the church who are not composed of flesh and blood to restore the erring brother? Of course not. You must understand that being physical does not preclude a thing (or a person) from being spiritual.

You also need to understand what the Gnostics taught about the material world and about the flesh. They taught that all physical matter was produced by the female discharge of a feminine Aeon (or goddess). Accordingly, they viewed the material creation as something evil, something to be shunned, something to escape. Salvation to a Gnostic was being set free from the physical creation, from flesh and blood. The early Christians fought heroically against this heresy and argued for the Scriptural truth that mans entire nature (body, soul and spirit) are included in the salvation that Christ offers. The Gnostics considered the flesh unworthy of salvation. True Christians recognize that as a false doctrine.

Quote:

---

As far as what kind of body the Lord Jesus now possesses in heaven please consider the following verse:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.15:45).

The Greek word translated "spirit" in this verse means "a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting...spoken of Christ as risen from the dead, 1 Co. xv. 45" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

---

You are, of course, quoting Thayer very selectively, and I have his Lexicon right in front of me. How about his second definition: the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated. This would make perfect sense in the context. The first part of the verse refers to Adam as a living soul. The last part refers to Christ as a life giving spirit. Adam had a flesh and blood body when he was a living soul, did he not? And Christ had a flesh and blood body when He became a "life giving spirit" as I will now show. This is in perfect keeping with the immediate context which compares pseuche (soul) with pneuma (spirit). No matter how you dissect the passage, Paul is simply NOT making the contrast between material and immaterial that you want him to make. Let me suggest another way to understand this verse.

Adam, in his humanity, became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. In this way, Adam received life from God. This life was a gift. Adam, at this point in his life, was capable of mortality or immortality depending on what he did with Gods gift.

Christ, in his humanity, became a life giving spirit when He became flesh through the virgin Mary and lived a spotless life in obedience to God and fulfilled His Fathers will to provide redemption for humanity through His death, burial and resurrection. That He is a life-giving spirit does not mean that He does not have a body of flesh. Did He have a body of flesh when He spoke these words?

19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. John 5

Please notice that this speaks of the Son giving life through the resurrection. He goes on.

24 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forththose who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. John 5

This is how He is a life giving spirit. He gives life through the resurrection of the body. And notice also, that He has this authority because He is the Son of Man (Verse 27, which speaks of his humanity) and because He accomplished the will of the Father (Verse 30).

Quote:

---

Of course Irenaeus could not have been wrong about what he believed. After all, he knew that the Lord Jesus lived to be fifty years of age

---

Let me point something out before you reject Irenaeus and take your stand with the Gnostics. There are literally scores of quotations I could have offered, not only from Irenaeus but from ANY of the ECFs of the first two centuries who wrote about the resurrection. I chose this particular quotation because of Irenaeus statement that even within the orthodox church, there were some ignorant souls who had been confused because of their exposure to the writings of Gnostics. Because of this, he deemed it necessary to instruct them accurately about the dispensations of God and the mystery of the resurrection. It is people like you, Jerry, that Irenaeus had in mind. Your opinion on this matter is confused by exposure to careless (and technically heretical) terminology and unbiblical teaching about a supposed heavenly destiny.

You have been shown how this opinion is in error. So which way will you go now? Will you go deeper into a point of view that philosophically is Gnostic and pagan? Or will you pause and make a careful investigation into this matter and come to understand that the resurrection of the physical body (and especially of Christs physical body), is absolutely fundamental to New Testament Christianity? If ultimately, you deny that Jesus Christ was resurrected in, and now possesses, the very same body in which He suffered and died, then you will be denying the most fundamental doctrine of the faith, and you are not a Christian.

It is every bit that serious.

Sincerely,

Roger

Jerry,

1. Do you believe that the body that Jesus had in His incarnation was a real human body, with flesh and bones, atoms and molecules, and human DNA?

2. Do you believe that the body that Jesus had when He was resurrected was the very same physical body in which He suffered and died?

3. Was His resurrected body composed of flesh and bone, atoms and molecules, and human DNA?

If your answer to these three questions is 'yes,' then my next question will be,

4. What do you believe happened to His body, since you do not believe that He still has it? Where is it now?

Roger

Jerry,

Quote:

---

In case you didn't noticed you did not respond to any of the points which I made.

If you wish to concede those points that is fine with me. But to turn to another subject without even attempting to answer my points seems a bit disingenuous to me.

In your last post you said:

Quote:

---

Thus, soma pseuchikon means literally, soulish

---

---

The Greek word which you say means "soulish" has the Strong's Concordance Number of "5591".

You say that you have Thayer's Lexicon so look up that number and you will see that there is no meaning of "soulish" given for that word. [/quote]

In your previous post, you said,

Quote:

---

You are wrong. The word translated "natural" means "of the principle of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

The Greek word translated "natural" does not mean "soul". It is the principle of animal life which men have in common with the brutes. That kind of "body" is NOT the same thing as a "spiritual" body.

---

Jerry, you are misunderstanding what Thayer means by the principle of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes. Here is Thayers complete statement:

Quote:

---

pseuchikos: of, or belonging to the psuche; having the nature and characteristics of psuche, i.e. of the principle of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes.

---

So, to understand this definition, we need to understand the word [/i]psuche.[/i] Here is Thayer again.

Quote:

---

psuche: 1. breath : the breath of life; the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing; of animals; of men. life; that in which there is life; a living being, a living soul 2 the soul: the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.) ; the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness; the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life. The soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death

---

There is nothing in Thayers definition of psuchikos that means physical or material regardless of whether one is speaking of men or of animals.

Here is Bauers definition of psuchikos:

Quote:

---

pertaining to the soul

---

It is really that simple. So unless you are arguing that the soul is material, this is not even debatable.

Quote:

---

Roger -- First I deny that we will receive a spiritual body that is other than the same body that we now possess. Paul says, It is sown it is raised. Thus, right here in the verse you are quoting, the continuity is demonstrated. The first "it" must be the same thing as the second "it."

Jerry -- Paul is comparing the process of resurrection to a "seed". The "it" refers to a seed He compares the "seed" to a "natural" body, and before the natural body can become a "spiritual" body it must die So the seed, which is compared to a "natural" body, will not become a spiritual body until it dies. And the seed then becomes a spiritual body after death The word "it" does not refer to the same body but instead to a "seed".

---

You are overlooking the fact that the seed is a metaphor for the body.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Quote:

---

Roger -- Furthermore, a quick search in the New Testament on the word pneumatikos, (spiritual) easily demonstrates that your definition (non-physical, not composed of flesh, immaterial) cannot be correct. Here is a sampling of passages. In this first one, pneumatikos is again contrasted with pseuchikos.

Jerry -- There is a big difference between a spiritual "man" and a spiritual "body".

From the context we can understand that "he who is spiritual" is one who has "received the spirit which is of God" (1 Cor.2:12). This has nothing to do with a "spiritual body" which the Christian will receive at the rapture. The Christian is "spiritual" ("he who is spiritual") while he remains alive and before the rapture. The word "natural man" in this instance is speaking about a man who has not "received the spirit which is of God".

Nothing that you say here supports your idea that a "natural" body is the same thing as a "spiritual" body.

---

The question we are debating is whether the spiritual body that we will possess after the resurrection is the same body that we possessed in this life, only changed and glorified or if it will be immaterial and non-physical. The passages I showed you prove that neither psuchikos nor pneumatikos mean immaterial.

Quote:

---

Jerry -- The Greek word "pneumatikos" is an adjective, and the root of that word is "pneuma", and that word means "a spirit,

---

That is correct, Jerry. All I am trying to help you see is that the Greek word psuchikos is also an adjective, and the root of that word is psuche, and that word means a soul.

Quote:

---

Jerry -- The Greek word "pneumatikos" is an adjective, and the root of that word is "pneuma", and that word means "a spirit i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting." (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon)

---

Do you have a spirit? If the answer is yes, then would I be correct to say that Jerry is a spirit, a simple essence, devoid of all matter? Of course not. Why? Because you also have a body. What kind of body do you have? Well, according to this passage, your body is psuchikos. What does that mean? It means your body is dominated by your soul. What is your soul? It is the sensual part of you, that which connects you to life in this world, the seat of your feelings, desires and affections. Your body will eventually die. According to Scripture, it will also be raised up at the second coming of Christ. What will your body be like after the resurrection? According to this passage, your body will be pneumatikos. What does that mean? It means your body will be dominated by your spirit. What is your spirit? It is the deepest part of your inner being, that which connects you to God.

Does this mean your resurrected body will be immaterial? No. An immaterial body would be an oxymoron. It will be the same body. It will simply be changed and this and several other ways. It will be immortal and incorruptible. That means incapable of death or decay.

Quote:

---

Jerry -- So the word pneumatikos is an adjective and as an adjective it is qualifying the body of which Paul speaks as being "a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting."

---

You deny that there will be a resurrection of the flesh. The amazing thing is that you can come to this conclusion while reading 1 Corinthians 15, the very chapter Paul wrote to refute such a denial!

Quote:

---

Roger -- If ultimately, you deny that Jesus Christ was resurrected in, and now possesses, the very same body in which He suffered and died, then you will be denying the most fundamental doctrine of the faith, and you are not a Christian.

Jerry -- Here Paul is speaking of the Lord Jesus as being "heavenly" as contrasted to being "earthly":

" The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly" (1 Cor.15:17-18).

The heavenly sphere is described as "eternity" or the "eternal" sphere:

" For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones" (Isa.57:15).

This is a different dimension, a dimension that existed before the whole universe was created. Here we can get some clues about the "eternal" sphere:

" While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).

---

So you are arguing that heaven is not a real place? It is just a sphere? A dimension? And this heavenly sphere is just a synonym for eternity?

I believe heaven is a real place, created by God. It is the dwelling place of angels, and the place of Gods throne. Tell me, if it is not a real place, where did Jesus go at His ascension? And from where will He come when He returns?

So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. Mark 16:19


who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven. Acts 1:11