Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Looking for evidence of resurrection in the Law of Moses


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#61 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 21 November 2010 - 09:02 AM

Peter says that Christ's flesh did not see corruption. I believe him when he says that.


Let's use all of Peter's words. Peter says that Christ's body was not left to decay because it was raised. I believe him when he says that.

That is not what Peter says. Here is the relevant passage, from the NET Bible:

2:25 For David says about him, 'I saw the Lord always in front of me,
for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.
2:26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;
my body also will live in hope,
2:27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
2:28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of joy with your presence.'
2:29 "Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
2:30 So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne,
2:31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay.
2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it.

Peter confirms that David was speaking about the resurrection of Christ in two respects:
  • he (Gk: his soul, 'psuche') was not abandoned in the grave;
  • his body (Gk: flesh, 'sarx') did not experience decay.
And he goes on to confirm that the apostles are witnesses of the fact that Jesus was indeed raised.
But Peter does not make the second point, that Christ's flesh did not experience decay, simply a consequence of his being raised, as you have done. There is no "because" in what he says. His claim is that the resurrection of Jesus is a unique event; it is unlike the natural experience of all others (including David) who have died, in two ways: (1) God did not allow Jesus stay in the grave, and (2) his flesh did not experience decay. Neither of these things is at all normal, and Peter confirms David's prophecy that both were true of Jesus in his resurrection. Your reading of the words does not follow that structure, which is plain in the text.

Do you think that actually his flesh was corrupting in the grave, as any corpse normally would?


Of course it was. His body wasn't magic, his body was corrupting from the time that he died on the cross.

Neither was the extra manna of the 6th day "magic". But on the morning of the sabbath, it had not corrupted, as would be expected. Clearly, therefore, God had done something special to bring that about. Yet whilst you allow that God did that for for the manna, you refuse to allow that God did the same for the body of his own son, so that his flesh was likewise not corrupted, exactly as David and Peter said it would not be?

Paul later confirms the exact same point that Peter makes in Acts 2, and he makes an explicit contrast on this very issue. Speaking to this in the synagogue in Antioch, he says:

13:35 ... he also says in another psalm, 'You will not permit your Holy One to experience decay.'
13:36 For David, after he had served God's purpose in his own generation, died, was buried with his ancestors, and experienced decay,
13:37 but the one whom God raised up did not experience decay.

Paul makes an explicit contrast between David experiencing decay and Jesus not experiencing decay. Your claim is quite opposed to that - you claim that Jesus body did experience decay. Fort, I believe the description given by David, Peter and Paul. I do not believe your account.



I just pointed out that there's nothing in John 6 which substantiates your point that the manna in the Pentateuch represents resurrection.

You've generalised greatly from what I said, incorrectly. I have never said that "manna in the Pentateuch represents resurrection", i.e. as a general principle. My point is much more specific than that. It is that the absence of corruption in the extra manna gathered on the 6th day, when it was taken from the vessel on the morning of the sabbath day, is a symbol for the resurrection of Christ, whose flesh did not experience corruption even though he tasted death for a short time.

I said that here Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, and indeed he is. He says that he is the true bread, the bread from heaven which fulfilled - but went far beyond - the pattern of the manna in the wilderness. He said that the bread, eating of which can bring eternal life, was his flesh. The connection with resurrection comes then in Acts 2 where Peter says of Christ that his flesh did not see corruption. It is in this respect that the figure of the preservation of the 6th day's manna, which was, unnaturally, found uncorrupted (without worms, and not stinking) on the morning of the sabbath, is a figure for Jesus' resurrection, when he was raised from the death, not having experienced corruption.


Your reasoning is:

1. The manna is a figure of Christ.
2. Christ said that eating his flesh brings eternal life.
3. Christ's flesh did not see corruption.
4. Christ was raised.
5. Therefore the manna being uncorrupted on the 6th day is a figure for Christ's resurrection.

There is no logical chain of reasoning here which results in the manna being a symbol of Christ's resurrection. As has been pointed out again and again, the manna was never in a state analogous to death, let alone 'corruption'. Furthermore, examining each point we find:

1. Christ did not use the manna as a figure of himself. He contrasted himself with the manna saying he is the true bread from heaven, which if a man eat he will receive eternal life.
2. Christ was not speaking of his literal flesh, so the chain of reasoning "manna = Jesus' flesh = uncorrupted flesh = uncorrupted flesh which was raised" is simply a non-sequitur; the conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise.
3-4. Christ's body was not left to decay because he was raised.

Sorry, Fort, but by creating your own summary version of my argument, in your own words, you're making a straw man, something easy to knock down. Your arguments need to be made against the specific actual words I have used, not your own incorrect re-presentation of what I have said, turned into a form you can criticise. In this summary, you've left out a number of aspects of my logic, and in particular the key linkages in the scriptural reasoning, the specific words that connect the relevant passages in how they are used of the different elements.

But briefly to deal with the first two points now (I already dealt with your 3rd point, above):

1. Jesus clearly does make the manna a figure for himself. The key issue here, which I outlined earlier, is how a figure works, what makes it a figure. In a scriptural figure, there is necessarily a combination of elements showing similarity and elements showing difference. In an earlier comment I referred to Heb 9:24, which makes this point very clear: the holy places made with hands - the tabernacle with its first holy place and its second, the holy of holies - are "figures" (Gk: 'antitupos', anti-types) of the "true", which is heaven itself. The holy places are not the true dwelling place of God, because of the differences between them and heaven; but they are figures of heaven, because of certain deliberate and explicit similarities between them and heaven.

The fact that both Jesus and the manna are called "bread from heaven", and can be eaten of, is one of several points of similarity, showing the genuine figurative relationship between the manna and Jesus. And it is the contrast between Jesus and the manna, that eating of him brings eternal life whereas eating of the manna did not, a specific difference, which shows that the manna, the bread from heaven indeed is indeed a figure of him, and not itself the true bread from heaven, which is Jesus himself. The manna is the figure; Jesus is the true.

2. When Jesus said "the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", he was indeed speaking of his actual physical flesh. When he gave himself in sacrifice, it was his actual flesh and blood body which was nailed to the tree. We show this in figure every week, when he partake of bread and wine, the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 21 November 2010 - 09:05 AM.


#62 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 November 2010 - 09:24 AM

That is not what Peter says.


It sure is:

31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay.

As far as Peter is concerned, 'neither abandoned to Hades nor did his body experience decay' is talking about the resurrection. Christ was not abandoned to hades, because he was raised. Christ was not left to decay, because he was raised.

There is no "because" in what he says.


There doesn't have to be. There are more ways than one of expressing causation. In this case it's clear:

* Not abandoned to hades: is talking about resurrection
* Nor did his body experience decay: is talking about resurrection

So the way that both of those came about was by the resurrection. Seriously Mark, you cannot possibly claim that the resurrection was not the way in which Christ was spared from the grave? In what way was he 'not abandoned to Hades' which did not involve the resurrection?

Neither was the extra manna of the 6th day "magic". But on the morning of the sabbath, it had not corrupted, as would be expected. Clearly, therefore, God had done something special to bring that about. Yet whilst you allow that God did that for for the manna, you refuse to allow that God did the same for the body of his own son, so that his flesh was likewise not corrupted, exactly as David and Peter said it would not be?


Of course God did something special to bring that about, in the case of the manna. Not only that, but we're told exactly that. No such statement is made in the case of Christ.

Paul makes an explicit contrast between David experiencing decay and Jesus not experiencing decay. Your claim is quite opposed to that - you claim that Jesus body did experience decay.


Again you are missing out the part about the resurrection. Paul's point is that David was buried with his ancestors and experienced decay, but that Christ was raised, and did not experience decay.

You've generalised greatly from what I said, incorrectly. I have never said that "manna in the Pentateuch represents resurrection", i.e. as a general principle. My point is much more specific than that.


Please don't start these legalistic crotchets. That was not the intention of what I wrote. Read my words in context, we all know that you're talking about the extra manna on the 6th day which was taken from the vessel on the morning of the sabbath day. I am not going to write ' the extra manna on the 6th day which was taken from the vessel on the morning of the sabbath day' every time, I am just going to refer to 'the manna'.

It is that the absence of corruption in the extra manna gathered on the 6th day, when it was taken from the vessel on the morning of the sabbath day, is a symbol for the resurrection of Christ, whose flesh did not experience corruption even though he tasted death for a short time.


Absence of corruption != resurrection. Resurrection = dead then raised to life. The manna was never dead.

Sorry, Fort, but by creating your own summary version of my argument, in your own words, you're making a straw man, something easy to knock down.


If that's a straw man you can easily prove it by denying any of those points, but I know you are not going to deny any of them.

1. Jesus clearly does make the manna a figure for himself. The key issue here, which I outlined earlier, is how a figure works, what makes it a figure.


No it's a contrast:

* Your fathers ate manna and are dead
* Eat my flesh and live forever

You can't possibly say that he saying:

* Your fathers at manna and are dead
* I'm manna too, eat me and live forever

The fact that both Jesus and the manna are called "bread from heaven", and can be eaten of, is one of several points of similarity, showing the genuine figurative relationship between the manna and Jesus.


In other words, they were both 'bread from heaven'. But 'bread from heaven' is a category into which 'manna' and 'Jesus' both fit. This is not the same as saying 'I am the manna'.

And it is the contrast between Jesus and the manna, that eating of him brings eternal life whereas eating of the manna did not, a specific difference, which shows that the manna, the bread from heaven indeed is indeed a figure of him, and not itself the true bread from heaven, which is Jesus himself. The manna is the figure; Jesus is the true.


There, you've just agreed with me. Christ was a 'bread from heaven' which was not manna. The bread from heaven which was manna could not be a figure of Christ because it did not give eternal life. The manna did not do anything for the Israelites which Christ does for us. Absolutely nothing.

2. When Jesus said "the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", he was indeed speaking of his actual physical flesh. When he gave himself in sacrifice, it was his actual flesh and blood body which was nailed to the tree. We show this in figure every week, when he partake of bread and wine, the communion of the body and blood of Christ.


No he's not talking about his actual physical flesh. He's talking about his life. That's what we participate in, not his actual flesh and blood. He gave his life, he didn't hand over a lump of meat. We remember his life in the emblems, not his torso and limbs.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#63 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts

Posted 21 November 2010 - 07:49 PM

Fort, Ev: On this topic of disagreement between us, I think it is fair to say that I've made my case, and you've made arguments against it, to which I have responded, though you do not accept my answers. It is clear to me that we will not readily resolve the questions to a position of mutual satisfaction, so I am not going to continue with the debate. I have other issues I would like to spend time on, and I expect the same is true for you. For now, I will let the readers of this thread make their own judgment of both my exposition and your opposing views, in relation to what the scriptures say.

I think this thread is now better left open for other examples of resurrection in the law of Moses, as Pete has been asking for. There have been some already, but I expect more can be brought forward.

#64 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 21 November 2010 - 11:06 PM

Mark T

Thank you for your points.

Interesting that brother John Thomas wrote the following:

Eureka Volume 1

Chapter 2

SECTION 3


8. The Hidden Manna

"The Manna which hath been concealed" is a form of speech to be understood by comprehending the signification, first, of "the Manna;" and secondly, of its concealment; the latter of which will be found intimately connected with the gift of it to him that overcomes.

When the Twelve Tribes had arrived in the Wilderness of Sin, they murmured against Yahweh, because they apprehended that they would perish there from hunger; as if, had that been his intention, he would not have left them to die in Egypt. But the Spirit had heard their murmurings, which showed their want of confidence in his promises; for he had promised to plant them in the land of Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey: but they let go this hope in saying to Moses and Aaron, "Would to God we had died by the hand of Yahweh in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh-pots and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger."

These murmurings being heard, Yahweh said to them through Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you." Having made this promise, before it was fulfilled "the Glory of Yahweh appeared in a cloud," as they looked toward the wilderness; and the whole congregation saw it. And the Spirit said, "At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread;" and ye shall know that I, Yahweh, am your Elohim." And it was so.

But when the morning came they at first saw only "the Dew," sparkling in the light of day. But "when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness a small round thing small as the hoar frost upon the ground." The people had seen nothing of the kind before deposited by the evaporation of the dew; therefore they inquired of one another, (!Hebrew!) Mahn hu, What it? For they knew not what it was." And Moses said to them, "This is the bread which Yahweh hath given you to eat."

And at this point of the narrative it may be worthy of note and emphasis.

  • That Israel saw the glory of the Eternal before they received either flesh or bread;
  • That they received flesh first, that is, "at even;"
  • That they received bread the succeeding morning; so that there was an intervening night:
  • That they beheld the glory, and received the food in the wilderness, and forty years before they received the promised land.
Now, as we are taught in the New Testament, the signification of the things that happened to Israel in the wilderness was not confined to that generation. Their baptism into Moses, their eating of the Manna, their drinking of the Rock, their overthrow in the wilderness, the apostle Paul says, "were types of us." Read what he says in 1 Cor. x. 1-10. After this enumeration, he adds in the eleventh verse, "Now all these things happened unto them for types !greek!; and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the Aions (the Mosaic Aions) are come."

The Flesh and the Manna then, according to Paul, were "spiritual meat." In regard to the manna, it is styled in Psal. lxxviii. 24, "the corn of the heavens," "the bread of mighty ones" -- "man did eat the bread of mighty ones." This and the flesh, by which the life of Israel was sustained, was "spiritual meat;" it was, nevertheless, material and corruptible flesh and bread; for under certain conditions, it stank and bred worms. But it was "spiritual" in the sense of representing something else than its own material constituents; in other words, the flesh and the bread were types of something that was afterwards to descend from the heavens, and to become the life-sustaining principle of all that should receive it. What was that something?

This question has been answered by Jesus in John vi. The Jews had said, "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread out of the heaven to eat." But in reply to this, Jesus said "Moses gave you not the bread out of the heaven; but my Father giveth to you the true bread out of the heaven. For the bread of the Deity is He, who descendeth out of the heaven, and giveth life to the kosmos." This was as much as to say, that the manna was representative of a life-imparting agent from heaven; even the Logos speaking by Jesus. "In him," the Logos, "was life," says John; "and the life was the light of men." The Logos, or Spirit of Deity, was the manna, or true bread. It was this Logos who said, I am the Way and the Truth and the Resurrection, and the Life;" I am the Bread of Life," or the Manna; "I came down from heaven;" "this is the bread which descendeth from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die ... if any man eat of this bread he shall live in the Aion: and the bread that I, the Logos, will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the kosmos."

Thus spake the Logos, who was in the beginning the Deity. He promised to give "His Flesh" for the sustenance of the kosmos. This flesh was the Son of Mary and David, named Jesus; and the Logos appointed that Jesus should be eaten, and his blood drunk, in the even, by all who would become the subjects of resurrection to the life of the Aion. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." This saying is fatal to the heathen dogma of an immortal soul in Sin's flesh; for they only eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, who "discern the Son and believe into him;" and this can be affirmed only of an almost Noachic few in this evil generation. He that believes the written testimony of the Logos concerning Jesus, set forth in the prophets and apostles, and becomes the subject of repentance and remission of sins in his name, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, and "hath aion-life" in the sense of Apoc. xxii. 14 -- "blessed they doing God's commandments, that they may have the right to the Wood of the Life:" "and I will raise him up at the last day" (John vi. 54). Thus, "he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," and none else.

The Christ, then, or the Logos become flesh, is the "spiritual meat" represented by the flesh and manna in the wilderness. Hence, the apocalyptic Manna is representative of the last Adam, whom Paul styles "a life-imparting spirit;" and to eat from this manna, is to be the subject of incorruptibility of body and life, which together constitute "immortality," in the thousand years' Aion; which deathlessness is imparted by the Spirit which raised up Jesus from among the dead.

We may here recall the attention of the reader to the four points already before him. These were typical conditions, the antitypes of which may be thus stated in a corresponding order:

  • It was typically necessary that Israel see the Glory of Yahweh before they eat heaven's flesh at even, and eat from the Manna in the morning;
  • That they eat the flesh first;
  • That they eat the bread afterwards;
  • That they eat both before they obtain Aion-possession of the land promised to Abraham and his Seed.
Under the first head I remark that Jesus Anointed was the Glory of Yahweh. This is proved by John's testimony, that "the Logos became flesh, and dwelt among us (Israelites), and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace: for the law was given through Moses, the grace and the truth (represented by that law) came through Jesus Anointed." This Glory of the Father was seen by "Judah and his companions" in the evening of the Mosaic Aion; and he was seen in the wilderness, as Isaiah had predicted, saying, "The Voice of him that proclaimeth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim ... and the Glory of Yahweh shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see together" (Isai. xl. 3,5). This was partially fulfilled in the evening of the Mosaic Aion, as related in regard to John the Baptizer. He was that voice; the Spirit descending in the form of a Dove was Yahweh, or the Logos; and Jesus, the Eloah of Israel, who, when anointed, became, as the voice of John proclaimed, "our Elohim," or the Logos, the Eloah from heaven, become flesh in Jesus, the other Eloah of the house of David. These two Elohim dwelt among the Jews, as "the Only Begotten of the Father" -- Son of Power and Son of Man -- who hath declared the Invisible Deity to men.

But "all flesh" have not yet "seen together." Judah and his companions have seen; but Israel and his companion-tribes have not. Multitudes of the former have eaten the flesh, and drunk the blood, of the Son of Man; and are now sleeping out the intervening night, that in the morning they may come forth as dew, and when it hath gone up, they may be as manna upon the ground. But the Ten Tribes did not see the Glory of Yahweh in the days of John. It is, however, typically necessary that they do see it in the wilderness before the morning, that they also may eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Logos, before they eat of the manna hidden in the dew, preparatory to their admission into the covenanted land. The whole congregation of Israel must see the glory together; and, as Jeremiah saith, "thy words were found, and I did eat them;" so Israel has to come to the knowledge of "the truth as it is in Jesus," inwardly to digest it, and to feed upon it in the wilderness-probation that awaits them in the matter of their restoration.

In the morning, they who have seen the glory, and eaten the flesh "at even," or believed the gospel of the kingdom and name of Jesus Anointed, will behold "the Dew" before "it is gone up." The bread to be eaten was concealed in the dew, and did not appear until the fluid matter in which it was suspended was evaporated by the action of the sun. Now, the manna in dewy suspension is apocalyptically styled "the manna that hath been concealed." The manna concealed in dew is a type of the resurrection of the first-fruits of the Spirit. When they that now dwell in the dust awake and sing, they are at their awaking the Spirit's Dew; which the prophet saith is as "the Dew of herbs" (Isai. xxvi. 19). They remain in this Dew-state until the Sun of Righteousness acts upon them, and transforms them into Manna; that is, makes them corporeally like himself -- transforms the body that comes out of the grave into a like form to that with which he descends from heaven (Phil. iii. 20). To be the subject of this transformation by the Spirit is "to eat of the manna which has been concealed."

But the concealment of the manna has also especial reference to Jesus who is himself the type of his companions. In the historical type, the manna appears in two forms -- first, as susceptible of corruption; and secondly, as incorruptible. "If left until the morning it bred worms and stank." Ordinarily it would not keep from morning to morning; but in the manna gathered upon Friday this tendency was restrained, and it remained perfectly good; and "did not stink, neither was there any worm therein." Now Jesus, as we have seen, being the Logos become flesh, was both evening quail and morning bread. He was gathered by the nation on Friday, or the sixth day, when they crucified him. They gathered him in the morning, but they did not leave him on the cross till the following morning; still, they kept him laid up in the sepulchre on Saturday; nevertheless, he did not stink, neither was there any worm in his body. The Spirit "would not permit His Holy One to see corruption;" for the tendency natural to the flesh was restrained.

Israel gathered a double portion on Friday; so that when they went out on Saturday to look for it, "they did not find it in the field," as Moses said: so when they gathered the bread of heaven, and laid him in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, those who might go out to look, could find the Son of Man no longer sowing the words of eternal life in the field.

But some of the manna was incorruptible for a longer period than the sixth and seventh days. It was made to last for generations. Moses was commanded to put an omer, or tenth part of an ephah of manna into a pot, and to lay it up before the Testimony, to be kept. Every day this was preserved (and it was kept for centuries), evinced the presence of the Spirit in the Most Holy; for ordinarily it would not keep. It was deposited in the chest, called the Ark of the Testimony, which was overlaid with gold; whose lid was termed the Caphporeth, propitiatory, or Mercy Seat; and upon which the Cherubim were based. This Ark of the Covenant contained the Tables of the Law, the pot of Manna, and Aaron's Rod which budded; things all representative of the Logos in his incarnate manifestation.

Now as Aaron laid up an omer full in a pot, and concealed it from view within the Ark of the Testimony there to remain for centuries; so the Eternal Spirit concealed in Jesus, the antitypical Ark of His Testimony, that deposit of Manna, from which it shall be given to those who overcome to eat. We feed upon this manna from day to day in feeding upon the truth. But what we eat today will not suffice for the morrow. We must keep it in memory. But though we thus feed, and rejoice in "the right to life," yet it is life-manna concealed; for "we are dead, and our life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ our life shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory (Col. iii. 3,4).

The night, then, of the Life-manna's concealment in the Spirit's Ark, is far spent; and the morning of its manifestation at hand. Jesus Anointed, who is the Glory of the Eternal, has been "hid in God" concealed from human ken "at the right hand of Power," for many generations and centuries. Though once like the daily manna, corruptible; during that long period he has been, and will ever continue to be, like the Manna in the Ark, incorruptible. We look for his appearing, that we who are dead, who are corruptible and mortal, and also by nature "dead in sins;" but pardoned, and therefore dead to the world, and buried with Christ in baptism, and risen with him out of its waters in hope of being planted in the likeness of his resurrection -- we wait for his coming, that the spirit may be in us as in him; and that being made like him, we may eat of the manna that hath been so long concealed.


The highlighted section about the manna, then Pete also mentioned Aaron's Rod which budded (the ark) - life came from dead wood ... as Christ was nailed upon dead wood to give life ... and the stone tablets inscribed with the terms of the covenant which, the terms of the covenant, our Lord Jesus Christ submitted to never breaking them.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#65 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 21 November 2010 - 11:42 PM

Useful comments Fort and Ev, thanks.


Unfortunately, the comments Mark made were misrepresented in many instances in the responses hence, we have the same difficulty again - what was actually said was not and what was read into what was not said or said :first:

It is also interesting the aspect of whether Christ's body did see corruption in the usual way - as in what we understand it to be ... something dies ... and decay commences immediately.

The very problem is and according to God's righteousness, a man who goes to the grave who is sinless - can the grave or even death hold such a man?

It simply can't!

So was Christ's lifeless body subject to the processes of decay?
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#66 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 03:15 AM

Interesting that brother Thomas also saw the manna as a symbol of incorruptibility and eternal life, but not as resurrection. Some of Mark's comments may have been misrepresented, but plenty of arguments were made on the basis of a proper understanding of what he wrote.

The very problem is and according to God's righteousness, a man who goes to the grave who is sinless - can the grave or even death hold such a man?

It simply can't!


This point was not in dispute.

So was Christ's lifeless body subject to the processes of decay?


Absolutely. Otherwise what's the point of resurrection? He can't have a body which is simultaneously dead and incorruptible. It can't be simultaneously perfect and dead.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#67 jon

jon

    Omicron

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 468 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 03:16 AM

So was Christ's lifeless body subject to the processes of decay?


Yes of course it was or else he wouldn't have been dead.

The point is simply that his body would raised, the natural decaying processes following death would be interrupted before they took hold so that his body would not corrupt away to dust.

His righteousness did not prevent him from suffering or dying.

Edited by jon, 22 November 2010 - 03:18 AM.


#68 Chris

Chris

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 03:42 AM

..thought I would get more allegorical events from strictly the Law of Moses
:first:


Wave sheaf offering of the first fruits. Offered on the day after the weekly sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, 50 days before Pentecost.

#69 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 04:08 AM

So was Christ's lifeless body subject to the processes of decay?


Yes of course it was or else he wouldn't have been dead.

The point is simply that his body would raised, the natural decaying processes following death would be interrupted before they took hold so that his body would not corrupt away to dust.

His righteousness did not prevent him from suffering or dying.


Jon ... did his body start to decay ... who really knows ?

The reason that comment was made is because of the verse and the difference between being dead (lifeless) and the processes which commence to break down the human body (and the various stages are interesting) leading to the last process of returning to the dust from which man was made ... whether, in the circumstances, and the outcome, whether this process was stayed - any form of decay.

Depending on conditions a human body can be just bones within a matter of days, though Jesus of course was in a sealed tomb.

The logic again, never before had a sinless man died, death being the wages of sin, so would Jesus' body been subject to the same process of decay that a sinner in death is subject to ?

I don't know, I don't think any of us really know but we base comment on what we believe to be the usual processes of birth, life and death, what to us is tangible - but the circumstances for Jesus were very different.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#70 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 04:32 AM



So was Christ's lifeless body subject to the processes of decay?


Yes of course it was or else he wouldn't have been dead.

The point is simply that his body would raised, the natural decaying processes following death would be interrupted before they took hold so that his body would not corrupt away to dust.

His righteousness did not prevent him from suffering or dying.


Jon ... did his body start to decay ... who really knows ?

The reason that comment was made is because of the verse and the difference between being dead (lifeless) and the processes which commence to break down the human body (and the various stages are interesting) leading to the last process of returning to the dust from which man was made ... whether, in the circumstances, and the outcome, whether this process was stayed, any form of decay.

Depending on conditions a human body can be just bones within a matter of days, though Jesus of course was in a sealed tomb.

The logic again, never before had a sinless man died, death being the wages of sin, so would Jesus' body been subject to the same process of decay that a sinner in death is subject to ?

I don't know, I don't think any of us really know but we base comment on what we believe to be the usual processes of birth, life and death, what to us is tangible - but the circumstances for Jesus were very different.

Jesus was a human being with the same human physiology as us. Once he died, oxygen would not have been delivered to his body, which means within a fairly short time, the cells forming his body would have begun irreversible breakdown. So yes, his body would have begun decomposing. I don't see why this is an issue - it's basic physiology. The circumstances for Jesus were not very different. He was made in all points like us, including physiology.


Ken, I think with several it is going over their head's what is being said - also it is just a general discussion, a what or if if you like.

Yes, know all about how the body breaks down ... it is interesting the process and when the heart stops beating cellular death commences.

Yes, Jesus was human - he died, yes - in his life made in all points as we are, he could die (and in death know not anything), he could have sinned.

He didn't sin, yet he died so the circumstances are different - he was a sinless man ... so did his body commence the usual process of decay ... ?

We simply don't know - though if one looks at the tangible - what we know happens under normal circumstances, one would say, yes, but again, Jesus was different ... he was sinless ... he was to be raised, the grave could not hold him ... so in light of that, Jesus in the tomb - was the process of decay in full momentum when this was a righteous, sinless man and unlike us.

Why the comments?

It really relates to the wages of sin being death - if he was sinless, yes, in death, but looking at it in the circumstances of his death ... why would he be subject to any form of corruption ... in the manner that because of sinlessness the grave could not hold him ... and the processes ... the tangible process as we understand it ... against the power of God.

As stated, I simply don't know, but find it rather interesting from the comments in this thread ... also the circumstance that he was a sinless man - so did that change the normal process of what we are condemned to being sinners (though we are with hope of the resurrection) and also the same eventual fate of death coming to those who don't know God and Jesus or reject them?

Edited by Kay, 22 November 2010 - 05:08 AM.

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#71 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 05:16 AM


Ken, I think with several it is going over one's head what is being said, it is just a general discussion, or what or if.

Yes, know all about how the body breaks down ... it is interesting the process and when the heart stops beating cellular death commences.

Yes, Jesus was human - he died, yes - in his life made in all points as we are, he could die, he could have sinned.

He didn't sin, yet he died so the circumstances are different - he was a sinless man ... so did his body commence the usual process of decay ... ?

Kay, being sinless has nothing whatsoever to do with human physiology. He needed to sleep. He needed to eat. He needed to breathe. He felt pain. Being sinless did not alter any of that (if you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show how being sinless altered the anatomy and physiology of the human body he shared with us). Once he died, he started to decompose. One can't appeal to being sinless to get around the facts of molecular physiology. I can't see why this should be a problem for people.


Don't know Ken ... but the wages of sin is death ... if Jesus was a sinless man, then death was not something that he should have experienced or could keep him in it's bonds.

I think the same arguments or similar with Adam and Eve - before the fall or after, was there a change?

Also, molecular physiology would indicate that man can't be raised from the dead ... apparently they can be!
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#72 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 09:16 AM

[quote name='Ken]Kay' date=' can we keep on subject here. I'm not going to deviate into the old question of whether there was a change in nature or not.[/quote']

Ken, we are on the subject - I merely mentioned the comment about Adam and Eve in the sense that it is similar in nature to this type of discussion, whether if or if not, do we know?

[quote]Once again:

* Jesus Christ was a human being like us - the same anatomy and physiology. As the Bible points out, he was made in all points like us, yet without sin.[/quote]

:first:

we have been through this before, Jesus was human like us ... he was also the son of God who followed his Father perfectly ... and without sin.

[quote]* He died on the cross, and remained dead for three days. Once you are dead Kay (and I've seen enough death in my professional life) it does not take long before you start decomposing. Rigor mortis sets in within 4-12 hours. By a few days, a body begins decomposing. In the Middle East, that would kick in fairly quickly (remember Lazarus?) After three days, the body of Jesus would have shown unmistakeable signs of death.[/quote]

:yawn:

In the middle east, that time of year, that of the passover, it may have been a moderate temperature ... not necessarily hot.

A place I worked at a number of years ago the morgue was next door - always brisk business during the winter months ... and the green carts would rattle when they went back to the main hospital area ...

Yes, when the oxygen ceases to be pumped through your body, then cell death is rapid - this has also been acknowledged. Even from a young child - kindergarten - this fact is known ...

Yes, rigor mortis

Yes, he did die on the cross, but his father was also God.

So, the stages:

The Heart stops (we won't go into what now defines death)

The skin turns grey in colour and tightens

The muscles relax

The bowels and the bladder empty as well as leakage from other parts of the body.

In men, depending on the way they die there can also be an erection.

The body temperature starts to drop.

30 minutes the skin goes to purple and waxy and the lips and the fingers, the nails turn white as the blood starts to settle in the lower parts of the body, lividity, the feet turn blue as well as the hands and the eyes begin to sink ... you mentioned Rigor mortis commences within 3 to 4 hours, though it can depend.

The blood continues to pool ... the muscles begin to tighten ... within 24 to 36 hours the body becomes limp again ... 24 hours the body is the temperature of where it resides ... the semen dies in males, the head and neck have changed colour to a greenish-blue which the rest of the body then becomes ... then the smell of flesh decaying.

The person, the face by this stage can no-longer be recognised ... 3 days, the gases in the body forms blisters on the skin, then the body begins to bloat and swell - it is grotesque, and of course depending on the environment ... more fluid leaks... and on it goes.

So, if Christ was 3 days and 3 nights in the grave, then His Father would have also been witness to this decay ... the breakdown of the body.

[quote]* Death is something inherent to the human body. Remaining in the grave forever is however something else, and as He was sinless, God raised him from the dead.[/quote]

:yep:

No argument Ken ... never has been, you don't have to explain in the manner that one is unintelligent or something ... no need for that.

[quote]I fail to see why you have written this. Human molecular physiology tells us that once a body stops breathing, cellular decomposition begins fairly quickly. Christ was sinless, so God raised him from the dead.

Again, I am genuinely perplexed as to why this is causing a problem.[/quote]

Yes, once someone stops breathing ... but did God stand by and watch the processes of decomposition of his beloved son for three days ... when it was bloated and grotesque, if heat had played a part in expediting the decay of the corpse - that is what makes me wonder, and the fact about "corruption" of the body, it is well within God's power that once Christ was dead that there may not have been decomposition.

I don't know Ken - but Ken, I am well aware of the processes, I am well aware in normal circumstances that nothing halts death or the decay - it can be slowed or in circumstances it can be rapid ... but the fact is that we appeal to science in a sense, but we know from the scriptures that the natural in many cases has been over-ridden - Lazarus as you mention, though he wasn't the son of God, he was also a sinner.

I will say it again, Ken, I don't know, I can understand your position, but did God allow the due process to happen once Christ was dead, that He witnessed over a period of 3 days the decomposing of his sons body ... after he had been murdered on the cross ?
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#73 jon

jon

    Omicron

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 468 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 09:31 AM

Its hardly legitimate to argue for something on the basis that "we don't know" when there isn't any reasonable basis for making the case in the first place. I may as well argue for fairies in the bottom of my garden because "we don't know" if God made fairies or not.

#74 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 10:04 AM

Its hardly legitimate to argue for something on the basis that "we don't know" when there isn't any reasonable basis for making the case in the first place. I may as well argue for fairies in the bottom of my garden because "we don't know" if God made fairies or not.


There would be fairies at the bottom of your garden if you lived near Taronga Park Zoo.

Jon ... I don't know ... but it does say that his body didn't see corruption, rather decay ... Acts 2, then compared with Acts 13 ... did his body see physical decay on his death ... as mentioned Jon, I don't really know.

From a perspective of what we know as the normal process in life, you would have to say no to any re-animation, hence you would have to say no that Jesus was raised from the dead, no that the son of the widow of Zarephath - 1 Kings 17:17-23 was raised from the dead, no that the Shunammite’s son was raised from the dead - 2 Kings 4:32-37 or the young man laid in Elisha’s tomb - 2 Kings 13:21 or the widow’s son - Luke 7:12-15 or the daughter of Jarius - Luke 8:49-55 or Lazarus - John 11:43,44 or Dorcas - Acts 9:37-40 or Eutychus Acts 20:9-12.

But, again, we have the aspect did God look on while his beloved son's body, his beloved son, rotted and decayed over a three day period - by the third day the process is well under-way ... and there is a difference, death, but God is the controller of the decay and it is within the realms of possibility either, the normal process or the process was stayed in the circumstances of Jesus being the Son and sinless, the grave couldn't hold him because there was no sin in him.

Anyway 'nuff said from me as the discussion is becoming a circular one.

Edited by Kay, 22 November 2010 - 10:08 AM.

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#75 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:08 PM

Don't know Ken ... but the wages of sin is death ... if Jesus was a sinless man, then death was not something that he should have experienced or could keep him in it's bonds.


The wages of sin is eternal death as a punishment for sin. Christ did not experience this. He did experience death however.

Hebrews 2:
9 but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while,11 now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.

Babies die too, but not because they've earned the wages of sin. It's because they're mortal.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#76 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:19 PM

Don't know Ken ... but the wages of sin is death ... if Jesus was a sinless man, then death was not something that he should have experienced or could keep him in it's bonds.


The wages of sin is eternal death as a punishment for sin. Christ did not experience this. He did experience death however.

Hebrews 2:
9 but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while,11 now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.

Babies die too, but not because they've earned the wages of sin. It's because they're mortal.


Fortigurn - this is evolving into some sort of madness in a way.

Perhaps God did watch as his beloved son's body decayed and bloated - I don't know ... no-one said that Christ didn't die, but death can't hold a sinless man ... and the only example we can use is that of Christ, God's son, who was raised 3 days after the event of his death.

... do babies really die, I was unaware that they were mortal? and I thought if they passed from this life in infancy they all went to heaven anyway ...

Thanks for the clarification :first: you never know what new thing you can learn on BTDF!

(note to self, to remember Fortigurn's instruction)
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#77 Kay

Kay

    Upsilon

  • Admin
  • 4,350 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:47 PM

Ken

I am fairly much done ... though I have learnt something new, that babies are apparently mortal :yawn:

To Lazarus ... Lazarus wasn't Jesus ...

and a bit like Mark T ... what more can be added, it was just discussion, it all gets a little tedious when one has to repeat themselves over and over, that one really doesn't know, it was just tossing something into the ring - then the "twenty questions" and the over and over and over again - so no further overs or encores from me.

:first:
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#78 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:49 PM


Acts 2:31
David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay.


NET Bible footnote:


Grk "flesh." See Act_2:26-27 (i.e., Acts 2:26b-27). The reference to "body" in this verse picks up the reference to "body" in Act_2:26. The Greek term σάρξ (sarx) in both verses literally means "flesh"; however, the translation "body" stresses the lack of decay of his physical body. The point of the verse is not merely the lack of decay of his flesh alone, but the resurrection of his entire person, as indicated by the previous parallel line "he was not abandoned to Hades."


:first:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#79 pete

pete

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 09:16 PM

So was Christ's lifeless body subject to the processes of decay?


Yes of course it was or else he wouldn't have been dead.

The point is simply that his body would raised, the natural decaying processes following death would be interrupted before they took hold so that his body would not corrupt away to dust.

His righteousness did not prevent him from suffering or dying.


We will get all this wrong if we go with modern physiology and all that.
What Kay said concerning a dead person is right, but the question is what did a Jew think of decay when this prophecy was written?

A book I took from Bro. Elijah Ezeh written by H.A. Guy (A non-Christadelphian) titled : 'The Life of Christ' first published in 1951 has this to say:

It was a Jewish idea that the soul stayed near the body for three days after death; then it departed, since the body began to decay"


Psa 16:10 For You will not leave My soul in hell; You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption. (MKJV)


Compare

(CEV: A thought for thought translation)
Psa 16:10 I am your chosen one. You won't leave me in the grave or let my body decay.


The word 'corruption' according to Strong is:

shakh'-ath
From H7743; a pit (especially as a trap); figuratively destruction: - corruption, destruction, ditch, grave, pit.
Return, O YHWH,deliver MY soul:Oh! Save me for thy mercy's sake

#80 jon

jon

    Omicron

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 468 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 09:59 PM

Yes, the question only arises because we are looking at corruption from a technical viewpoint, and so the conjecture that his flesh was different or sustained in a life-life state whilst dead, or something of the sort is raised. Leave it understood in the ordinary vernacular and its all unnecessary; his body did not corrupt away.

#81 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 23 November 2010 - 12:31 AM

his body did not corrupt away.


Well said. That's the point Scripture is making.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users