Does Jesus Christ have a HUMAN body NOW?

[Vladimir]

I believe so, but need as much info as I can get :-)

That is why I believe that Jesus Christ has a glorified human body now:

1. Acts 1:11"....This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

SAME indicates that Jesus will have a body upon His return.

2. Philipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven-and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

This verse above states that Jesus Christ has glorious human body, to which our bodies will be trasformed at His coming.


... That's all I could find so far... Any others?

In Christ's love,
Vladimir

[markporter]

I think it just seems the logical assumption really, if he had it then why should he get rid of it? And all the verses which refer to Christ being exalted to the highest place etc. would seem to refer to his human/messianic nature.

[Tsmith]

Those do not show anything oh having a body of flesh.


The assumption of most in Christianity is that Jesus was raised back in the same physical body that he died in. However, is this what the scriptures actually define.

A Life-Giving Spirit
In this first scripture for us to take into consideration the bible clearly states what Jesus became. Let us take a simple consideration of such.


1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it has been written, "The" first "man", Adam, "became a living soul;" the last Adam a life-giving Spirit.
This scripture is quite clear, really. Those who do not accept Jesus having becoming a spirit say this does not actually mean what it says! They say that because it has the clause "life-giving" it means he is not a spirit. However, is this a correct assumption? Well the best way to answer this is to simply look at the grammar here.

This phrase, translated "a life-giving spirit" is translated from the words eiV pneuma zwopoioun. An interlinear translation of such would read something like "into [a] spirit giving life." This word ZWOPOIOUN is a word denoting action, not identity. It is not saying he is a "life-giving spirit" as a person that simply gives life, but that he is "[a] spirit [who is] giving life."

A direct comparison can be made between this clause and the one made just before it. Here it says that Adam "became a living soul." We know from reading Genesis 2:7, that his is what Adam actually became:a soul, using the word ZWSAN, which denotes the action of living. This, of course, is contrasted with a dead soul (Ezekiel 18:4). So just as Adam became a soul who was alive, Jesus became a spirit who gives life.

Made Alive in the Spirit
This scripture, much like the last, is all too clear. A direct comparison is made from the way he died to the way he was made alive. It was in the flesh he was put to death, and it was in the spirit he was made alive.


1 Peter 3:18 Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;
Really, this is quite a straight forward scripture. The only question might be of the translations that render this "by the Spirit." Really, there is no basis in grammar for this alternate rendering. While possible, the direct contrast is ignored and a theological bias is truly displayed. The vast majority of modern translations do render this "in the spirit."

Not Always Visible
One of the more interesting things about Jesus is that he often became visible. He was not always such. First, consider that he only became visible to those who God allowed him to.


Acts 10:40 God raised up this One the third day and gave to Him to become visible; 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses, the ones having been before hand-picked by God, to us who ate and drank with Him after His rising again from the dead.
Further, we know that not only did he become visible, but he also disappeared as well. Take note.


John 20:19 Then it being evening on that day, the first of the Sabbaths, and the doors having been locked where the disciples were assembled because of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them, Peace to you.
Luke 24:36 And as they were telling these things, Jesus Himself stood in their midst, and said to them, Peace to you!

KJV Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Luke 24:34 saying, The Lord really was raised and appeared to Simon.


Both appearing and disappearing is not a characteristic of flesh, but that of a spirit. Again, providing evidence that Jesus was raised as a spirit, and not flesh.
His Appearance
One of the most interesting items in all of this is Jesus appearance. We are fortunate to have a description in Daniel of what an angel looks like in spirit form. Let us consider this account.


Daniel 10:5 then I lifted up my eyes and looked: And behold! A certain man was clothed in linen, whose loins were wrapped in fine gold from Uphaz. 6 His body was also like the beryl, and his face looked like lightning. And his eyes were like torches of fire; and his arms and his feet in color like polished bronze; and the sound of his words were as the noise of a multitude.
An interesting account of this angel, it provides a direct point of reference for us to determine what type of body Jesus is in. How so? Well this angel, in a spirit body, appeared as such. If Jesus was to appear as such as well, this could certainly be a determining factor. Does he do so? In fact, yes. Let us consider the account.


Revelation 1:13 And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, having been clothed to the feet, and having been girded with a golden girdle at the breasts. 14 And the hairs of His head were white as white wool, as snow, and His eyes as a flame of fire; 15 and His feet like burnished brass having been fired in a furnace; and His voice as a sound of many waters;
This is certainly a striking similarity. If Jesus were flesh, would he not appear just as he did to the apostles? Certainly, because that was his body type. But rather, he appears as an angel! Certainly a key point worth noting.

Jesus as the Passover Sacrifice
We know that Jesus is called “the Lamb" and that he is the Passover sacrifice for us. We see this in the following verse.


1 Corinthians 5:7 Then purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For also Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.
With this in mind, we can look back at the Biblical Passover account to determine what happened to Jesus flesh and blood.


With the Passover lamb, we know that first the blood would be poured out. The lamb would be eaten and then whatever remained of the lamb's flesh would be burnt up. Let us consider this account.

Exodus 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in this night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 9 Do not eat it raw, or at all boiled in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs and with its inward parts. 10 And you shall not leave any of it until morning. And you shall burn with fire that left from it until morning.
Therefore, after this happening, for the Passover sacrifice to be completely fulfilled, his flesh would have been burnt up by the next morning. If this did not happen, he truly was not a sacrifice. Rather though, the Bible explicitely states that Jesus offered his body as such.


Hebrews 10:10 by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
But does God accept and burn up sacrifices himself? Well we know he does!


1 Kings 18:38 And fire fell from Jehovah and burned up the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and the water in the trench was licked up.

This, of course, was a showy display, but it was intended as such. It does, though, set the precedent that Jehovah will take sacrifices up directly from heaven. Being that Jesus offered this body he was given, we know that God did the same. Further, the Bible clearly indicates Jesus having flesh was something past tense. Hebrews 5:7 In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. Thus, if this was something he did in the days of his flesh so that he was resurrected, he clearly is indicted to no longer be in his flesh.
Counter points

Not a Spirit?
Many will to a scripture that flat out states Jesus is not a spirit. However, should we be so quick to jump to the conclusion that this conflicts with what we just saw? No we shouldn't. First, let us examine the verse.


Luke 24:37 But being terrified, and being filled with fear, they thought they saw a spirit. 38 And He said to them, Why are you troubled? And why do reasonings come up in your hearts. 39 See My hands and My feet, that I am He? Feel Me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me having.
Well there are two essential factors in understanding scripture, especially when a key word is involved. In this case we have the Greek word PNEUMA, so we must examine both the context and the semantic range of the word. In the case of PNEUMA, the symantic range is quite wide, but based on the context we can narrow it down to the following definitions.

From the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains volume 2:

1) A supernatural non-material being
2) An evil supernatural being
3) An apparition, ghost

Now, we must consider the context of the scriptures. We can certainly rule out his making reference to number 1 because he clearly states that he is flesh. However, does this remove him from the category of spirit being in his resurrection? No, we know based on scripture it does not.

If we reference back to Genesis 18 we find the following of the angels:


Genesis 18:2 And he lifted up his eyes and looked; and, behold, three men were standing by him. And he saw, and he ran to meet them from the entrance of the tent. And he bowed to the ground.
Genesis 18:8 And he took curds and milk and the son of the herd which he had prepared, and he set before them. And he stood by them under the tree. And they ate.

Genesis 19:3 And he much urged them, and they turned in to him and came into his house. And he made a feast for them. And he baked unleavened cakes, and they ate.

We see three points here:

1) The angels were called men, and walked about as such
2) They ate food
3) They stayed with Abraham, and then later with Lot


Knowing that they were angels, and yet these things were true can we say that they were supernatural non-material beings? No. While they were certainly supernatural, they were far from being non-material in this state. Therefore, having said this, we can understand this point we know that Jesus was not simply saying he was not a supernatural non-material being, but that he was not an evil supernatural being or a ghost.

Therefore, to put this verse in summary, we understand the context and we understand why he could rightly say that he was not a spirit. This was just as the angels who appeared in the OT to Abraham and Lot. They would not have been able to rightly call themselves spirits at that time, for that would have equated to a lie, for they had assumed flesh.

It is key to note that angels, though spirits, are actually sometimes contrasted with spirits, showing that Jesus also would not have been removing himself from this category.


Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees indeed say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But Pharisees confess both. 9 And there was a great cry. And the scribes of the part of the Pharisees rising up, they were contending, saying, We find nothing evil in this man. And, If a spirit spoke to him, or an angel, let us not fight against God.
So then, we must ask, why did Jesus appear as such. Well if we follow the context of the parallel account in John, it clearly states the reason.


John 20:30 Then truly Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
We note that it says he did many OTHER signs, clearly indicating that this event of appearing was considered a sign.

The Temple
This next example is of Jesus speaking oh his temple being risen up after three days. Some will say that this must mean his flesh. However, with the way this is written, that is a very hasty conclusion.


John 2:19 Jesus said to them, Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then the Jews said, This sanctuary was forty six years being built, and do You raise it up in three days? 21 But He spoke about the sanctuary of His body.
Jesus made a beautiful illustration here. He referenced his body as a temple, in direct comparison to the Jewish temple. What makes this comparison so wonderful is that because of it we can clearly understand that the form he took after his resurrection would actually be quite different than that which he had before his resurrection. Consider the original temple that was destroyed in 60 by Babylon. It was brought to complete ruin.

Now "the temple" was rebuilt and brought to a completion roughly 200 years later. Was this the temple? Yes it was. However, the materials it was made out of and the form of it were vastly different. Yet, still, it was the temple.

This same can be said of Jesus. While his temple was brought to ruin, his temple was raised back up, but no longer in the same form and made of the same materials. Let us take see this in the scriptures though.


1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

So while he had a natural body of flesh, on his resurrection he was raised up a spiritual body as the angels have.

Thus, we can clearly conclude, with all the evidence considered, that Jesus must have had an angelic spirit body, not one of flesh, on his return to heaven.

Finally, in dealing with the following verse:

Philipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven-and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

Now we must keep the following verse in mind.

2Co 5:8 even we are fully assured, and think it good rather to go away from home out of the body, and to come home to the Lord.

Keeping this verse in context, we know that the body of flesh is gone and these become spirit. Spirit bodies, just as angels have and as Jesus is shown to have in Revelation.


-Tony

[quetzalphoenix]

In response....

Briefly, because there are others here (Jaltus, for one) with far better Greek skills than I who I hope will post here...

Paul's use of "spirit" (as you do point out) is very wide-ranging. The verses in question in 1 Corinthians touch upon the origin of the one created. Our origin is heavenly and Spiritual (of the Holy Spirit, I believe is the sense here)

As far as the properties of Jesus' body...he was able to eat, he offered for Thomas to touch him, and yes, he did walk through walls. He was not a "ghost" or an "apparition" but some kind of glorified body, an imperishible, immortal human being.

As far as Daniel 10...where in the text is the man identified as an angel? Furthermore, apocalyptic literature is notoriously difficult to interpret--it is metaphorical and at the same time points to reality. I wouldn't go there as a way of describing the physical, this-worldly realities of Jesus' body. The same goes for Revelation.

I'm not sure where you are going with the argument about the Passover--is the intent of those texts to describe the resurrected body or the physical result of sanctification? That doesn't seem to be their force.

Yes, Jesus' miraculous appearance to his disciples was a sign...but of his resurrection and God's vindication of his Messianic mission. I don't see how that fits into your discussion.

The discussion about the Temple, similarly, strains the force of those passages, which clearly refer to the rebuilding of Jesus' body (see John's gloss on Jesus' words).

I don't see any reason to assume we will have angelic bodies.... glorified, yes, but why wouldn't the scriptures be clearer about the issue, especially given Jewish hopes about the nature of the resurrection.

Conclusion:
Jesus is currently a glorified human being, to whom we are united by the Holy Spirit. Through this union we have the promise of our eventual glorification and perfected nature, of which he is the firstfruits.

Afterthought:
If we are going to assert that our resurrection results in the taking on of angelic bodies, what kind of an anthropology would that yield? Human beings are physical as creatures, and our consciousness is intertwined with our physicality. Although we can dwell in an intermediate state, the Bible does not treat that as normative.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121621#post121621)
quetzalphoenix:
As far as the properties of Jesus' body...he was able to eat, he offered for Thomas to touch him, and yes, he did walk through walls. He was not a "ghost" or an "apparition" but some kind of glorified body, an imperishible, immortal human being.

I already addressed these points really, and they are of no consequence.


As far as Daniel 10...where in the text is the man identified as an angel? Furthermore, apocalyptic literature is notoriously difficult to interpret--it is metaphorical and at the same time points to reality. I wouldn't go there as a way of describing the physical, this-worldly realities of Jesus' body. The same goes for Revelation.


The simply fact remains that the person that appeared there had the same physical attributes in appearance as that of Jesus in Revelation.


I'm not sure where you are going with the argument about the Passover--is the intent of those texts to describe the resurrected body or the physical result of sanctification? That doesn't seem to be their force.

The point was to show that Jesus as the Lamb and our passover sacrifice, would follow the example set by the traditional Jewish passover sacrifice. According to that sacrifice, the body of flesh was burnt up by the next morning. Thus, Jesus, if he is TRULY the Lamb, would have had to have the same apply to him. If it didn't, he does not fit as our sacrifice.

Yes, Jesus' miraculous appearance to his disciples was a sign...but of his resurrection and God's vindication of his Messianic mission. I don't see how that fits into your discussion.

The fact that his appearing and in a specific way (with the wounds from his death), that, naturally, would have been healed when he was resurrection is called a sign.

The discussion about the Temple, similarly, strains the force of those passages, which clearly refer to the rebuilding of Jesus' body (see John's gloss on Jesus' words).

It hardly strains the force, but rather it is a realistic comparison. The temple was destroyed and rebuilt differently, as was Jesus body. Of paticular interest is that Jesus uses the word destroy, instead of simply kill, further going along with the idea that it was burnt up and not simply put to death.

I don't see any reason to assume we will have angelic bodies.... glorified, yes, but why wouldn't the scriptures be clearer about the issue, especially given Jewish hopes about the nature of the resurrection.

While the context of such is directly related to marrage, I think this is certainly food for thought:

Mark 12:25_For when they rise from the dead, neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in the heavens.


Jesus is currently a glorified human being, to whom we are united by the Holy Spirit. Through this union we have the promise of our eventual glorification and perfected nature, of which he is the firstfruits.

You have still not provided any evidence to support this theory. Rather, the Bible clearly states in no uncertain terms that he was "made alive in spirit" and he "became a life-giving spirit."

[Vladimir]

If Jesus was RAISED in the spirit body, then how can you live with these passages in the Bible?

Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

if you read a little more, you 'll note that:

"Luke 24:41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, "Have you any food here?" 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence"

How can a spirit body eat?

I think that there is very little doubt that Jesus had physical human body after the resurrection... the question is whether He remains in that body.

In Christ,
Vlad

[Tsmith]

If you please take the time to make a complete reading of my original post you will see that these questions were completely addressed.

-Tony

[bar Jonah]

What'll really blow your mind is if you start considering how God the Son had a bodily form before His incarnation 2,000 years ago. :ri:

[quetzalphoenix]

Tony/

I plan to respond thoroughly to your post tonight. I think that, if I understand your position, what you are claiming is dangerous and actually undermines the argument of Paul in 1 Corinthians.

The resurrection (bodily) is my hope, for salvation as well as glorification. I'll write more when I get off work.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 04:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122443#post122443)
quetzalphoenix:

Tony/

I plan to respond thoroughly to your post tonight. I think that, if I understand your position, what you are claiming is dangerous and actually undermines the argument of Paul in 1 Corinthians.

The resurrection (bodily) is my hope, for salvation as well as glorification. I'll write more when I get off work.
Honestly, sounds a lot like a Jehovah's Witness.

Tony, you do know that Jesus could do all those things in a bodily form since He is Jehovah, right? I fail to see why these invisibilities and "teleportations" would be a problem for God.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 11:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122453#post122453)
RightIdea:


Honestly, sounds a lot like a Jehovah's Witness.

Tony, you do know that Jesus could do all those things in a bodily form since He is Jehovah, right? I fail to see why these invisibilities and "teleportations" would be a problem for God.

See, you fail to understand what happened. It wasn't simply that he "teleported" but that he actually had to BECOME visible. If he was flesh, he would be visible and would thus "telelport," but the scriptures tell us he became such, showing a reverse of the situation you claim.

Act 10:40 God raised up this One the third day and gave to Him to become visible;

-Tony

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 04:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122477#post122477)
Tsmith:
See, you fail to understand what happened. It wasn't simply that he "teleported" but that he actually had to BECOME visible. If he was flesh, he would be visible and would thus "telelport," but the scriptures tell us he became such, showing a reverse of the situation you claim.

Act 10:40 God raised up this One the third day and gave to Him to become visible;

-Tony
Tony, may I ask, what translation are you using?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122486#post122486)
RightIdea:


Tony, may I ask, what translation are you using?

That particular one is the LITV, however, I have a substantial library of them, so I have no problem using any, as long as you don't mind my going back to the Greek from time-to-time.

-Tony

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 05:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122488#post122488)
Tsmith:
That particular one is the LITV, however, I have a substantial library of them, so I have no problem using any, as long as you don't mind my going back to the Greek from time-to-time.

-Tony
LITV? I don't even know what that is. Anyone?

Tony, because your doctrine and hermeneutic are so unorthodox, may I ask what sect you are coming from? Most non-JWs, when it is inferred that they might be of the Watchtower, will jump at the chance to distance themselves from that group.

So, then, are you associated with the Watchtower? Are you a Jehovah's Witness? I just want to understand where you're coming from, so I can better comprehend where you're going with all this. :smile:

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122495#post122495)
RightIdea:


LITV? I don't even know what that is. Anyone?

Tony, because your doctrine and hermeneutic are so unorthodox, may I ask what sect you are coming from? Most non-JWs, when it is inferred that they might be of the Watchtower, will jump at the chance to distance themselves from that group.

So, then, are you associated with the Watchtower? Are you a Jehovah's Witness? I just want to understand where you're coming from, so I can better comprehend where you're going with all this. :smile:


LITV- Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. While based on the Textus Receptus, the translation quality itself is generally good.

Yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I was invited to post here by one of the admins who had contacted me via email, and so here I am.

-Tony

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122499#post122499)
Tsmith:
LITV- Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. While based on the Textus Receptus, the translation quality itself is generally good.

Yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I was invited to post here by one of the admins who had contacted me via email, and so here I am.

-Tony
Literal translation by who? I know of several literal translations, including Young's, but I take it that this isn't Young's.

Yes, I figured you were JW. Wasn't looking to make you feel unwelcome. We have all kinds of non-Christians here, from atheists to witches (like I was a few years ago). It's just that it's often helpful to know where someone is coming from when you're discussing or debating theology. Thanks for being up front. :ri:

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122507#post122507)
RightIdea:


Literal translation by who? I know of several literal translations, including Young's, but I take it that this isn't Young's.



Green did the translation work.

[mickiel]

There is no flesh in heaven. Will someone explain to me why Christ would even want a human body? He couldn't wait to get out of it, why would he desire to preserve him one?

[quetzalphoenix]

OK, here goes.

My major points are:

1. Jesus Christ was resurrected bodily into a glorified state. This state is hinted at in scripture, no full definition of the glorified body's properties are given, but we can assert continuity with the human body/being.

2. The idea of "resurrection" in the OT and in rabbinic literature up to and after the time of Christ requires continuity of some kind with human bodily existence. Again, a full orbed definition of this existence is not given, but continuity is emphasized.

3. The argument that Jesus is "resurrected" into an angelic/spiritual (in the sense of non bodily, immaterial) state seriously puts into the question the expectation of the church and believers at their resurrection.

First, the OT points to a bodily resurrection. See Job 19:25-26; Isa 26:10-19. See also discussions of rabbinic literature in theological encylopedias, or NT Wright's discussions in his literature. The expectation at the time of Christ was a bodily resurrection--for the NT to change this hope to something else would require significant teaching on the part of Jesus or the apostles.

The NT echoes this hope as well. Roman 8:11; Phil 3:21. The groaning of this life is to one day end and we will put on a heavenly dwelling--we will be clothed (2 Cor 5:1-5) 1 Cor 15 argues for the resurrection of the body, and the discussion in verse 35ff is regarding the kind of body those who are raised will have. This discussion emphasizes the continuity of the glorified body as well as its radically new nature. The entire discussion is about the body, not about shedding the body.

Back to Tony's post of a few days prior....

He refers to 1 Peter 3:18. Christ being made alive in "the Spirit" refers to the work of the Holy Spirit, not an immaterial/angelic state of resurrection.

Acts 10:40 and "being made visible." First, the context does not require that Jesus is an angelic being--for all we know about a glorified body, his appearing is possible. There would need to be more clues to hang an argument entirely on this verse.

Lk 24:34 - "The Lord really was raised and appeared to Simon." I think Tony's emphasis here was upon "appeared." True--but the verse also says "raised", which to Jewish readers of the day would signal bodily resurrection. "Appearing" in that context can mean nothing more than showing up or showing oneself to someone.

I already discussed Daniel/Revelation. Again, I think that to read the "son of man" as an angel and to view those descriptions as flatly physical is to do injustice to the apocalyptic genre of both books.

Regarding the Passover. Tony asserts that becaase the Passover lamb was to be burned up, Jesus' flesh would have been consumed/taken up, and replaced with a spiritual/angelic mode of being. Howwever, the Passover lamb is also to be drained entirely of blood, eaten, and the remnant burned....are we going to be that strict with the metaphorical comparison? The question is how Jesus is like a Passover lamb. His physical reconstitution after death is simply not part of the analogy.

John 20:30 - I'm still not clear about why Jesus' appearance being a "sign" demonstrates anything about his not being in human form.

John 2:19 - Tony makes an extended comparison between Jesus and the rebuilding of the second temple. A look at the text, however, tells us that Jesus was speaking about the sanctuary of his body (verse 20) in contrast to the physical temple. I like Wright's discussion of Jesus and the Temple in "Jesus and the Victory of God." Jesus is the new Temple--he is Yahweh's presence among his people. How/when the actual temple is rebuilt is beside the point now that Jesus has come.

1 Cor 15:44. Natural body, spiritual body... the point is that this is a body. See Phil 3:20 also.

2 Cor 5:8 - yes, better to go home away from the body and be with the Lord...but the final hope (after an intermediary unclothed state) is resurrection...see 5:1-5.

Finally, Mark 12:25 and the comparison of men and women to angels in heavens. This is, like above, a matter of taking a metaphor too far. The comparison is about procreation. We can assume that there is no procreation in heaven, like the angels, yes. This does not mean that we will cease to be humans, but that our humanity will be radically reconstituted.

Jesus came to be the new Adam, the greater David, the human being that finally acts in the most human way--more human than we have ever yet been, due to our sinful, tainted natures. Our hope is that one day, as he has been glorified (note also the transfiguration and the hope of Moses and Elijah's glorification), we will be as well. The resurrection shows that God has vindicated Christ's work as Passover lamb, that he accepts him as our covenant head, and that one day we will enter into the temple (the Lord God himself - Rev 21:22) and walk in a human nature without sin.

[quetzalphoenix]

Yesterday @ 11:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123016#post123016)
mickiel:

There is no flesh in heaven. Will someone explain to me why Christ would even want a human body? He couldn't wait to get out of it, why would he desire to preserve him one?

Can you point to where Jesus couldn't wait to get out of his human body? I couldn't find that expressed in the gospels.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123490#post123490)
quetzalphoenix:

OK, here goes.

My major points are:

1. Jesus Christ was resurrected bodily into a glorified state. This state is hinted at in scripture, no full definition of the glorified body's properties are given, but we can assert continuity with the human body/being.

No we can't. You CHOOSE to assert that because of your theology, but there is no scriptural basis for such.

2. The idea of "resurrection" in the OT and in rabbinic literature up to and after the time of Christ requires continuity of some kind with human bodily existence. Again, a full orbed definition of this existence is not given, but continuity is emphasized.

And this discussion of that resurrection deals with the promise to the Jews of living forever on Earth (Psalms 37:11,29). It does not involve those that go to heaven.

3. The argument that Jesus is "resurrected" into an angelic/spiritual (in the sense of non bodily, immaterial) state seriously puts into the question the expectation of the church and believers at their resurrection.

Nobody said Christ was resurrected non-bodily. Rather, that he wasn't in a body of flesh. He had a spiritual body.


First, the OT points to a bodily resurrection. See Job 19:25-26; Isa 26:10-19. See also discussions of rabbinic literature in theological encylopedias, or NT Wright's discussions in his literature. The expectation at the time of Christ was a bodily resurrection--for the NT to change this hope to something else would require significant teaching on the part of Jesus or the apostles.

The OT scriptures deal entirely with an Earthly resurrection (Psalms 37:11, 29). The Jews do not expect to go to heaven, but they plan to live forever on Earth. Hence, in OT scriptures, we can of course expect to see references to a resurrection of the physical body, because that is what will happen to ones on Earth. However, these ones were not promised immortality, which is what certain ones in the NT are promised. A physical body cannot provide such, as if you fall off a cliff, you are going to die. So you cannot compare OT references to a resurrection of people living on Earth to NT scriptures related to ones going to heaven.

The NT echoes this hope as well. Roman 8:11; Phil 3:21. The groaning of this life is to one day end and we will put on a heavenly dwelling--we will be clothed (2 Cor 5:1-5) 1 Cor 15 argues for the resurrection of the body, and the discussion in verse 35ff is regarding the kind of body those who are raised will have. This discussion emphasizes the continuity of the glorified body as well as its radically new nature. The entire discussion is about the body, not about shedding the body.

Again, you do not seem to understand my point. It is not that ones will not have a body, but that they will have a spirit body, as angels do.

He refers to 1 Peter 3:18. Christ being made alive in "the Spirit" refers to the work of the Holy Spirit, not an immaterial/angelic state of resurrection.

Incorrect. This scripture directly contrasts the form he was in at death to the form he was in at resurrection. Context further proves this:

1Pe 3:19 in which also, going in to the spirits in prison, He then proclaimed

So "in which..." Meaning, in the spirit. Not in the flesh, because he was made alive in the spirit. We can take this one step further and show this by the Greek grammar:

ZWOPOIHQEIS DE PNEUMATI

The lack of the definite article that helps us to make it further evident that it is not speaking of the holy spirit.

Acts 10:40 and "being made visible." First, the context does not require that Jesus is an angelic being--for all we know about a glorified body, his appearing is possible. There would need to be more clues to hang an argument entirely on this verse.

It is not that he did appear, but it is that he HAD to. The natural state of flesh is materialized in form. If you dematerilize it, you're really no longer flesh, as it is a combination of atoms that form a substance. It is the fact that he had to BECOME visible to be seen that shows us he was not flesh by nature, but that he assumed such. Your position would require the reverse of this, in that God would grant him to become invisible.

Lk 24:34 - "The Lord really was raised and appeared to Simon." I think Tony's emphasis here was upon "appeared." True--but the verse also says "raised", which to Jewish readers of the day would signal bodily resurrection. "Appearing" in that context can mean nothing more than showing up or showing oneself to someone.

You are again focusing on a point that is invalid, because the location of Jesus finally after his resurrection does not correspond to the Jewish hope.

I already discussed Daniel/Revelation. Again, I think that to read the "son of man" as an angel and to view those descriptions as flatly physical is to do injustice to the apocalyptic genre of both books.

You have stated an opinion, but you have not really addressed the issue. The issue still remains until you provide some type of evidence for as to why we should disregard it.

Regarding the Passover. Tony asserts that becaase the Passover lamb was to be burned up, Jesus' flesh would have been consumed/taken up, and replaced with a spiritual/angelic mode of being. Howwever, the Passover lamb is also to be drained entirely of blood, eaten, and the remnant burned....are we going to be that strict with the metaphorical comparison? The question is how Jesus is like a Passover lamb. His physical reconstitution after death is simply not part of the analogy.

Actually, Jesus fit it perfectly.

Luk 22:19 And taking a loaf, giving thanks, He broke, and gave to them, saying, This is My body being given for you. This do to My remembrance. 20 And in like manner the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you.

His flesh and blood were first poured out symbolically with the bread and the wine. So again, to appropriately be the sacrifice, his body would be burnt up. Further evidence of this is that the scriptures flat out state that his body was given as a sacrifice. That said, he could not simply take it back.

Heb 10:10 by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


John 20:30 - I'm still not clear about why Jesus' appearance being a "sign" demonstrates anything about his not being in human form.

He did appear in human form and he showed Thomas his wounds and this event is in John 20:30 said to be a sign.

John 2:19 - Tony makes an extended comparison between Jesus and the rebuilding of the second temple. A look at the text, however, tells us that Jesus was speaking about the sanctuary of his body (verse 20) in contrast to the physical temple. I like Wright's discussion of Jesus and the Temple in "Jesus and the Victory of God." Jesus is the new Temple--he is Yahweh's presence among his people. How/when the actual temple is rebuilt is beside the point now that Jesus has come.

It was more of a compare and contrast. To the Jews at the time though, they thought he was only talking about the phsyical temple. However, the point is that just as the temple that Solomon was destroyed and the temple rebuilt differently, the same can be said of Jesus' body.

1 Cor 15:44. Natural body, spiritual body... the point is that this is a body. See Phil 3:20 also.

Right. But notice the lack of the Greek word SARX. It means flesh. Jesus was because PNEUMA according to 1 Cor 15:45, so the point is that he had a body that was spirit, in CONTRAST to what Adam had.

2 Cor 5:8 - yes, better to go home away from the body and be with the Lord...but the final hope (after an intermediary unclothed state) is resurrection...see 5:1-5.

So what? You go without a body for a while, be in heaven and then after a while, get your body back and still be in heaven? I don't think so. Further, the Bible does not teach of an intermediate state where the person is in heaven without a body of flesh. As Jesus clearly stated, no man had gone to heaven (John 3:13).

Finally, Mark 12:25 and the comparison of men and women to angels in heavens. This is, like above, a matter of taking a metaphor too far. The comparison is about procreation. We can assume that there is no procreation in heaven, like the angels, yes. This does not mean that we will cease to be humans, but that our humanity will be radically reconstituted.

Yes, I understand that we should not take this verse too literally, but it sets an interesting concept before us. Consider: a part of fleshly bodies is hormones. Are these going to suddenly go away?

Jesus came to be the new Adam, the greater David, the human being that finally acts in the most human way--more human than we have ever yet been, due to our sinful, tainted natures. Our hope is that one day, as he has been glorified (note also the transfiguration and the hope of Moses and Elijah's glorification), we will be as well. The resurrection shows that God has vindicated Christ's work as Passover lamb, that he accepts him as our covenant head, and that one day we will enter into the temple (the Lord God himself - Rev 21:22) and walk in a human nature without sin.

You have thus far failed to refute any of the points and you have not really even touched 1 Cor 15:45. The simply fact remains that Jesus was "made alive in the spirit" and he "became a life-giving spirit."

-Tony

[quetzalphoenix]

heaven?

sorry, but my hope is in the new heavens and the new earth. that makes your point about the "Jewish hope" (which is OUR hope as believers, part of God's continuous working out in history) invalid.

there's far too much going on here beneath the surface. your hermeneutic is drastically different than mine. your assumption of the continuity between the OT/NT as well. your understanding of human anthropology is different.

unless we adress these and other issues, there's not a point in continuing here. sorry, but i don't see how further dialogue is fruitful. someone else want to pick up where i left off? i have a low threshold for heresy.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123526#post123526)
quetzalphoenix:

heaven?

sorry, but my hope is in the new heavens and the new earth. that makes your point about the "Jewish hope" (which is OUR hope as believers, part of God's continuous working out in history) invalid.

there's far too much going on here beneath the surface. your hermeneutic is drastically different than mine. your assumption of the continuity between the OT/NT as well. your understanding of human anthropology is different.

unless we adress these and other issues, there's not a point in continuing here. sorry, but i don't see how further dialogue is fruitful. someone else want to pick up where i left off? i have a low threshold for heresy.

Well you could simply address the issues. The Jews never had any belief in going to heaven, so in any text related to a resurrection to heavenly life, one cannot compare the Jewish hope, as the two do not relate.

It seems you do not want address what the scriptures actually say regarding the resurrected Jesus.

-Tony

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123594#post123594)
Tsmith:

Well you could simply address the issues. The Jews never had any belief in going to heaven, so in any text related to a resurrection to heavenly life, one cannot compare the Jewish hope, as the two do not relate.

It seems you do not want address what the scriptures actually say regarding the resurrected Jesus.

-Tony

You missed my entire point. The focus of the Christian hope is not heaven as an immaterial existence, but the bringing of God's heavenly kingdom to earth (see the book of Revelation).

"The Jewish hope", as you call it, in the OT is not substantially different than our hope as believers after Christ's advent. He himself said that the scriptures testifed tohimself.

My problem with this dialogue is that you hold to entirely different views of how to interpret scripture, who God's people are, and if I am correct that you are a Jehovah's Witness, what salvation is and who Jesus Christ is. Thus we would need to build arguments from the ground up. My going back and forth with prooftexts is not helpful. You have a different framework to put them in. If I were conversing with an orthodox Christian, there might be more hope for constructive debate.

[Tsmith]

Yesterday @ 08:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123867#post123867)
quetzalphoenix:



You missed my entire point. The focus of the Christian hope is not heaven as an immaterial existence, but the bringing of God's heavenly kingdom to earth (see the book of Revelation).

"The Jewish hope", as you call it, in the OT is not substantially different than our hope as believers after Christ's advent. He himself said that the scriptures testifed tohimself.

My problem with this dialogue is that you hold to entirely different views of how to interpret scripture, who God's people are, and if I am correct that you are a Jehovah's Witness, what salvation is and who Jesus Christ is. Thus we would need to build arguments from the ground up. My going back and forth with prooftexts is not helpful. You have a different framework to put them in. If I were conversing with an orthodox Christian, there might be more hope for constructive debate.

The fact remains that we are dealing with a person who went to heavenly life. That places this person outside of a scrope of an Earthly existance as laid out in the Hebrew scriptures.

There are certain key texts in scripture that directly state the form Jesus was made alive to, that being "spirit." I don't see why anyone would insist in saying something other than what these state.

-Tony

[Justme]

HI everybody,

Concerning the Acts 10:40 quote, that is also the translation used in NASB. It is also the meaning set out in the KJV if you stop and consider it.

Back to the start of this thread there was a verse quoted....

1. Acts 1:11"....This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

Then some one said....

SAME indicates that Jesus will have a body upon His return.

I don't see where this verse even talks about a 'body', it talks about the method of 'leaving'. Hence, the many verses throughout the bible mentioning 'coming on the clouds'.

What in that verse would indicate that the object of that verb has anything to do with 'body'?

Interesting thread guys, there is a lot of talk on this forum about resurrected bodies now, all being interesting. Just remember that Jesus was GOD, we ain't, and things may vary somewhat because of that.

Justme

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 06:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123491#post123491)
quetzalphoenix:



Can you point to where Jesus couldn't wait to get out of his human body? I couldn't find that expressed in the gospels.

You can start in John 17:5, 19- Jesus sanctifys himself for our sake-- for that reason he must leave his human body or the Holy Spirit could not come to us- John 16:7, it is to our advantage that Jesus return to God. Anything that is to our advantage, Jesus desires. John 12:27, 32 are futher reasons desires to be finished with his body, when they lifted his body from the earth, salvation was complette. Jesus desires that complettion, the finished punishment of his body was part and parcial to that. You may also reference Christ statement, "how long must i be with this faithless generation", a sure sign he was tired of the sinfulness of mankind, longing to be with the perfection of his Father. This should be sufficent, but there are many more scriptures, and proofs if you need, i can continue the list.

[Zeus]

06-13-2003 @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121489#post121489)
Vladimir:

That is why I believe that Jesus Christ has a glorified human body now:

1. Acts 1:11"....This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

SAME indicates that Jesus will have a body upon His return.

2. Philipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven-and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

This verse above states that Jesus Christ has glorious human body, to which our bodies will be trasformed at His coming.


I think its clear Christ had a glorified human body at His rez, but I don't see much reason to think He has one now, one way or the other. Jesus was made man, incarnated in Mary's womb, but for most of history he did not have a human body. Why should He retain it when His job is finished? Even if He has a body at the second coming, that doesn't necesarily mean He has one now. As Paul says, God can give and take all types of bodies at will. The early church fathers denied God was composite, though a Trinity, and that He was pure Spirit. That suggests to me that the bodily form of Christ was only temporary, a role to be fulfilled during during His mission on earth. In the end, I truly think the issue it is irrelevant.

Z

[kilnerad]

Listen to this...Jesus has a human body...it is called the CHURCH!!!

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128095#post128095)
kilnerad:

Listen to this...Jesus has a human body...it is called the CHURCH!!!


This is very well written.

[PRAISE]

06-13-2003 @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121489#post121489)
Vladimir:

I believe so, but need as much info as I can get :-)

That is why I believe that Jesus Christ has a glorified human body now:

1. Acts 1:11"....This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

SAME indicates that Jesus will have a body upon His return.

2. Philipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven-and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

This verse above states that Jesus Christ has glorious human body, to which our bodies will be trasformed at His coming.


... That's all I could find so far... Any others?

In Christ's love,
Vladimir


Vlad-I know that I shold have taken a look at your thread first, because I was going to use the exact same reference that you used-Acts 1:11!:highfive: Actually, Jesus probably does still have the Human-looking body, but I would tend to think that it would be more like the same kind of bodies that we, (as believers), will have as talked about in I Corinthians 15:42-44. Won't it be great when we receive that same kind of body? I know that I am really looking forward to never having to wear glasses again!:smile:

PRAISE:thumb:

[Suede]

Valdimir,

That's actually quite a valid question and one I had never considered until coming across this well respected apologetics site. Here's the study on this topic from it,

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusisaman.htm

SUEDE

[markporter]

Actually, I've changed m mind on the answer to the original question, I think that it's pretty much unanswerable because of its nature...I don't think that we are able to define either 'body' or 'human' in a sense that is meaningful for this question....Christ's ascended nature is clearly a lot more than simply what we would interpret as a physical body, his claims to omnipresence show this..but perhaps what we mean when we say someone has a body is merely that there is a way in which they can have authority over some sort of physical representation of themselves....but then, what is physical? and human....seems a difficult term, perhaps it just goes along with the body bit....I don't know.

[Richbee]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=122507#post122507

Right Idea!

Do you have a personal testimony, and have you posted it?

"witch"???

Neopagan?

Best and Kindest Cyber,

Richard "B." Goode

< gooderichard@hotmail.com >

[InChristAlways]

Vlad-I know that I shold have taken a look at your thread first, because I was going to use the exact same reference that you used-Acts 1:11!:highfive: Actually, Jesus probably does still have the Human-looking body, but I would tend to think that it would be more like the same kind of bodies that we, (as believers), will have as talked about in I Corinthians 15:42-44. Won't it be great when we receive that same kind of body? I know that I am really looking forward to never having to wear glasses again!:smile:

PRAISE:thumb:Well, if I could answer that, I would hold the key to True Devine knowledge, but unlike the church "scholars" of today, I am but a lowly humble man in Christ, walking around in a body that is doomed to be dust and eaten by worms again. Please Lord, give me a new glorified body upon death like this one!!!!!

reve 1:12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands [One] like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair [were] white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet [were] like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

[PioneerSDA]

Those do not show anything oh having a body of flesh.


The assumption of most in Christianity is that Jesus was raised back in the same physical body that he died in. However, is this what the scriptures actually define.

A Life-Giving Spirit
In this first scripture for us to take into consideration the bible clearly states what Jesus became. Let us take a simple consideration of such.


1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it has been written, "The" first "man", Adam, "became a living soul;" the last Adam a life-giving Spirit.
This scripture is quite clear, really. Those who do not accept Jesus having becoming a spirit say this does not actually mean what it says! They say that because it has the clause "life-giving" it means he is not a spirit. However, is this a correct assumption? Well the best way to answer this is to simply look at the grammar here.

This phrase, translated "a life-giving spirit" is translated from the words eiV pneuma zwopoioun. An interlinear translation of such would read something like "into [a] spirit giving life." This word ZWOPOIOUN is a word denoting action, not identity. It is not saying he is a "life-giving spirit" as a person that simply gives life, but that he is "[a] spirit [who is] giving life."

A direct comparison can be made between this clause and the one made just before it. Here it says that Adam "became a living soul." We know from reading Genesis 2:7, that his is what Adam actually became:a soul, using the word ZWSAN, which denotes the action of living. This, of course, is contrasted with a dead soul (Ezekiel 18:4). So just as Adam became a soul who was alive, Jesus became a spirit who gives life.

Made Alive in the Spirit
This scripture, much like the last, is all too clear. A direct comparison is made from the way he died to the way he was made alive. It was in the flesh he was put to death, and it was in the spirit he was made alive.


1 Peter 3:18 Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;
Really, this is quite a straight forward scripture. The only question might be of the translations that render this "by the Spirit." Really, there is no basis in grammar for this alternate rendering. While possible, the direct contrast is ignored and a theological bias is truly displayed. The vast majority of modern translations do render this "in the spirit."

Not Always Visible
One of the more interesting things about Jesus is that he often became visible. He was not always such. First, consider that he only became visible to those who God allowed him to.


Acts 10:40 God raised up this One the third day and gave to Him to become visible; 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses, the ones having been before hand-picked by God, to us who ate and drank with Him after His rising again from the dead.
Further, we know that not only did he become visible, but he also disappeared as well. Take note.


John 20:19 Then it being evening on that day, the first of the Sabbaths, and the doors having been locked where the disciples were assembled because of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them, Peace to you.
Luke 24:36 And as they were telling these things, Jesus Himself stood in their midst, and said to them, Peace to you!

KJV Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Luke 24:34 saying, The Lord really was raised and appeared to Simon.


Both appearing and disappearing is not a characteristic of flesh, but that of a spirit. Again, providing evidence that Jesus was raised as a spirit, and not flesh.
His Appearance
One of the most interesting items in all of this is Jesus appearance. We are fortunate to have a description in Daniel of what an angel looks like in spirit form. Let us consider this account.


Daniel 10:5 then I lifted up my eyes and looked: And behold! A certain man was clothed in linen, whose loins were wrapped in fine gold from Uphaz. 6 His body was also like the beryl, and his face looked like lightning. And his eyes were like torches of fire; and his arms and his feet in color like polished bronze; and the sound of his words were as the noise of a multitude.
An interesting account of this angel, it provides a direct point of reference for us to determine what type of body Jesus is in. How so? Well this angel, in a spirit body, appeared as such. If Jesus was to appear as such as well, this could certainly be a determining factor. Does he do so? In fact, yes. Let us consider the account.


Revelation 1:13 And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, having been clothed to the feet, and having been girded with a golden girdle at the breasts. 14 And the hairs of His head were white as white wool, as snow, and His eyes as a flame of fire; 15 and His feet like burnished brass having been fired in a furnace; and His voice as a sound of many waters;
This is certainly a striking similarity. If Jesus were flesh, would he not appear just as he did to the apostles? Certainly, because that was his body type. But rather, he appears as an angel! Certainly a key point worth noting.

Jesus as the Passover Sacrifice
We know that Jesus is called “the Lamb" and that he is the Passover sacrifice for us. We see this in the following verse.


1 Corinthians 5:7 Then purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For also Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.
With this in mind, we can look back at the Biblical Passover account to determine what happened to Jesus flesh and blood.


With the Passover lamb, we know that first the blood would be poured out. The lamb would be eaten and then whatever remained of the lamb's flesh would be burnt up. Let us consider this account.

Exodus 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in this night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 9 Do not eat it raw, or at all boiled in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs and with its inward parts. 10 And you shall not leave any of it until morning. And you shall burn with fire that left from it until morning.
Therefore, after this happening, for the Passover sacrifice to be completely fulfilled, his flesh would have been burnt up by the next morning. If this did not happen, he truly was not a sacrifice. Rather though, the Bible explicitely states that Jesus offered his body as such.


Hebrews 10:10 by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
But does God accept and burn up sacrifices himself? Well we know he does!


1 Kings 18:38 And fire fell from Jehovah and burned up the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and the water in the trench was licked up.

This, of course, was a showy display, but it was intended as such. It does, though, set the precedent that Jehovah will take sacrifices up directly from heaven. Being that Jesus offered this body he was given, we know that God did the same. Further, the Bible clearly indicates Jesus having flesh was something past tense. Hebrews 5:7 In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. Thus, if this was something he did in the days of his flesh so that he was resurrected, he clearly is indicted to no longer be in his flesh.
Counter points

Not a Spirit?
Many will to a scripture that flat out states Jesus is not a spirit. However, should we be so quick to jump to the conclusion that this conflicts with what we just saw? No we shouldn't. First, let us examine the verse.


Luke 24:37 But being terrified, and being filled with fear, they thought they saw a spirit. 38 And He said to them, Why are you troubled? And why do reasonings come up in your hearts. 39 See My hands and My feet, that I am He? Feel Me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me having.
Well there are two essential factors in understanding scripture, especially when a key word is involved. In this case we have the Greek word PNEUMA, so we must examine both the context and the semantic range of the word. In the case of PNEUMA, the symantic range is quite wide, but based on the context we can narrow it down to the following definitions.

From the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains volume 2:

1) A supernatural non-material being
2) An evil supernatural being
3) An apparition, ghost

Now, we must consider the context of the scriptures. We can certainly rule out his making reference to number 1 because he clearly states that he is flesh. However, does this remove him from the category of spirit being in his resurrection? No, we know based on scripture it does not.

If we reference back to Genesis 18 we find the following of the angels:


Genesis 18:2 And he lifted up his eyes and looked; and, behold, three men were standing by him. And he saw, and he ran to meet them from the entrance of the tent. And he bowed to the ground.
Genesis 18:8 And he took curds and milk and the son of the herd which he had prepared, and he set before them. And he stood by them under the tree. And they ate.

Genesis 19:3 And he much urged them, and they turned in to him and came into his house. And he made a feast for them. And he baked unleavened cakes, and they ate.

We see three points here:

1) The angels were called men, and walked about as such
2) They ate food
3) They stayed with Abraham, and then later with Lot


Knowing that they were angels, and yet these things were true can we say that they were supernatural non-material beings? No. While they were certainly supernatural, they were far from being non-material in this state. Therefore, having said this, we can understand this point we know that Jesus was not simply saying he was not a supernatural non-material being, but that he was not an evil supernatural being or a ghost.

Therefore, to put this verse in summary, we understand the context and we understand why he could rightly say that he was not a spirit. This was just as the angels who appeared in the OT to Abraham and Lot. They would not have been able to rightly call themselves spirits at that time, for that would have equated to a lie, for they had assumed flesh.

It is key to note that angels, though spirits, are actually sometimes contrasted with spirits, showing that Jesus also would not have been removing himself from this category.


Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees indeed say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But Pharisees confess both. 9 And there was a great cry. And the scribes of the part of the Pharisees rising up, they were contending, saying, We find nothing evil in this man. And, If a spirit spoke to him, or an angel, let us not fight against God.
So then, we must ask, why did Jesus appear as such. Well if we follow the context of the parallel account in John, it clearly states the reason.


John 20:30 Then truly Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
We note that it says he did many OTHER signs, clearly indicating that this event of appearing was considered a sign.

The Temple
This next example is of Jesus speaking oh his temple being risen up after three days. Some will say that this must mean his flesh. However, with the way this is written, that is a very hasty conclusion.


John 2:19 Jesus said to them, Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then the Jews said, This sanctuary was forty six years being built, and do You raise it up in three days? 21 But He spoke about the sanctuary of His body.
Jesus made a beautiful illustration here. He referenced his body as a temple, in direct comparison to the Jewish temple. What makes this comparison so wonderful is that because of it we can clearly understand that the form he took after his resurrection would actually be quite different than that which he had before his resurrection. Consider the original temple that was destroyed in 60 by Babylon. It was brought to complete ruin.

Now "the temple" was rebuilt and brought to a completion roughly 200 years later. Was this the temple? Yes it was. However, the materials it was made out of and the form of it were vastly different. Yet, still, it was the temple.

This same can be said of Jesus. While his temple was brought to ruin, his temple was raised back up, but no longer in the same form and made of the same materials. Let us take see this in the scriptures though.


1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

So while he had a natural body of flesh, on his resurrection he was raised up a spiritual body as the angels have.

Thus, we can clearly conclude, with all the evidence considered, that Jesus must have had an angelic spirit body, not one of flesh, on his return to heaven.

Finally, in dealing with the following verse:

Philipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven-and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

Now we must keep the following verse in mind.

2Co 5:8 even we are fully assured, and think it good rather to go away from home out of the body, and to come home to the Lord.

Keeping this verse in context, we know that the body of flesh is gone and these become spirit. Spirit bodies, just as angels have and as Jesus is shown to have in Revelation.


-Tony


Dear Tony,

I am not going to respond to all of your points at this time but if it is alright with you I would like to respond to one of them. I think you put alot of imagination into this one and it is very interesting.

Before I quote it, I would like to say that this is the most thorough spiritual resurrection study I have ever looked at. This will do alot of help for students of scripture to refute all of your unbiblical interpretations Thank you for writing this.




[Therefore, after this happening, for the Passover sacrifice to be completely fulfilled, his flesh would have been burnt up by the next morning. If this did not happen, he truly was not a sacrifice. Rather though, the Bible explicitely states that Jesus offered his body as such.]


I think you are taking this analogy way too far but maybe you'll say the same thing about me.

First off the Passover lamb was offered at the Santuary and offered by the Priest and Hebrews 8:1,2 says that the true tabernacle is in heaven and Jesus is the High Priest.

And Jesus was killed out side of the city like the scape goat offering in Leviticus 16:10

Our Passover lamb didn't have to get burnt up because He was eaten up that night at the Pascal Supper and we eat Him up everytime we have the Lord's Supper. Yes I know that we only symbolically ate Him up.

I read this book one time by an SDA pioneer names Stephen Haskell which is about how Christ fulfilled all of the Old Testament offerings. Maybe you would like to read it sometime. It is called the Cross and It's Shadow and I found it on this website
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/haskell_contents.html
I don't vouch for this website it is just the first one I saw with this book that I like.

Anyways if Jesus's body was burnt up and didn't become glorified and immortal flesh than how could He fulfill the first fruits offerings?

This is what one Christian author has to say about that.



[Christ arose from the dead as the first fruits of those that slept. He was the antitype of the wave sheaf, and His resurrection took place on

Page 786
the very day when the wave sheaf was to be presented before the Lord. For more than a thousand years this symbolic ceremony had been performed. From the harvest fields the first heads of ripened grain were gathered, and when the people went up to Jerusalem to the Passover, the sheaf of first fruits was waved as a thank offering before the Lord. Not until this was presented could the sickle be put to the grain, and it be gathered into sheaves. The sheaf dedicated to God represented the harvest. So Christ the first fruits represented the great spiritual harvest to be gathered for the kingdom of God. His resurrection is the type and pledge of the resurrection of all the righteous dead. "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him." 1 Thess. 4:14.
As Christ arose, He brought from the grave a multitude of captives. The earthquake at His death had rent open their graves, and when He arose, they came forth with Him. They were those who had been co-laborers with God, and who at the cost of their lives had borne testimony to the truth. Now they were to be witnesses for Him who had raised them from the dead.

During His ministry, Jesus had raised the dead to life. He had raised the son of the widow of Nain, and the ruler's daughter and Lazarus. But these were not clothed with immortality. After they were raised, they were still subject to death. But those who came forth from the grave at Christ's resurrection were raised to everlasting life. They ascended with Him as trophies of His victory over death and the grave. These, said Christ, are no longer the captives of Satan; I have redeemed them. I have brought them from the grave as the first fruits of My power, to be with Me where I am, nevermore to see death or experience sorrow.

These went into the city, and appeared unto many, declaring, Christ has risen from the dead, and we be risen with Him. Thus was immortalized the sacred truth of the resurrection. The risen saints bore witness to the truth of the words, "Thy dead men shall live, together with My dead body shall they arise." Their resurrection was an illustration of the fulfillment of the prophecy, "Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." Isa. 26:19.] Desire of Ages Chapter 81 The Lord is Risen Page 785,786


That really got me thinking. If it's really true that some people were resurrected the same time as Jesus than why wouldn't they have the same glorified bodies that Jesus has?

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" Matthew 27:52,53


Remember on another post you said I was misrepresenting you. Well how do you think Peter and Paul would feel about you if they were alive today? Peter already confessed that he believed in the Physical resurrection of Christ in Acts 2

"Knowing this before it happened, David talked about the Christ rising from the dead. He said: 'He was not left in the grave. His body did not rot." Acts 2:31 New Century Version
and Paul already confessed he believed the same thing in Acts chapter 13.

"David did God's will during his lifetime. Then he died and was buried beside his ancestors, and his body did rot in the grave.But the One God raised from the dead did not rot in the grave." Acts 13:36,37 New Century Version

But you know what if Jesus's body did get burnt up that wouldn't just be corruption/decay that would be very accelerated decay and I'm sorry but Peter and Paul just didn't believe like you. Do you know why? It's because they believed Jesus was the Messiah.

"So I rejoice and am glad. Even my body has hope,because you will not leave me in the grave. You will not let your holy one rot." Psalms 16:9,10

If you can prove that Jesus did not have a physical resurrection than you've just proven that He's not the Messiah.

While we're on this resurrection subject I understand that you believe we are going to have angels bodies. Might I tell you that Job didn't believe that.

"For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth: For I know that my Redeemer lives,and at the last he will stand upon the earth.And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself,and my eyes shall behold, and not another.My heart faints within me! " Job 29:25-25 English Standard Bible

[InChristAlways]

1 Corinthians 5:7 Then purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For also Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.
With this in mind, we can look back at the Biblical Passover account to determine what happened to Jesus flesh and blood.
With the Passover lamb, we know that first the blood would be poured out. The lamb would be eaten and then whatever remained of the lamb's flesh would be burnt up. Let us consider this account.

Exodus 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in this night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 9 Do not eat it raw, or at all boiled in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs and with its inward parts. 10 And you shall not leave any of it until morning. And you shall burn with fire that left from it until morning.
Therefore, after this happening, for the Passover sacrifice to be completely fulfilled, his flesh would have been burnt up by the next morning. If this did not happen, he truly was not a sacrifice. Rather though, the Bible explicitely states that Jesus offered his body as such. Interesting post TS.
This made me wonder about this other "sacrifice" in Zeph 1 and Ezekiel 39. The Lord mentioned burning the jews and Jerusalem with "Fire" in Ezekiel 39, so I was wondering how you view this other "sacrifice"?. Do you relate Jesus and barabbas as the scapegoat and the offering goat in Leviticus or what is your view on that?
Your post was interesting and I copied it to study it. Thanks. zeph 1:7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord GOD; For the day of the LORD at hand, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests. 8 "And it shall be, In the day of the LORD's sacrifice, That I will punish the princes and the king's children, And all such as are clothed with foreign apparel. 9 In the same day I will punish All those who leap over the threshold, Who fill their masters' houses with violence and deceit.

Ezekiel 39:17 " And as for you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Speak to every sort of bird and to every beast of the field: "Assemble yourselves and come; Gather together from all sides to My sacrificial meal Which I am sacrificing for you, A great sacrificial meal on the mountains of Israel, That you may eat flesh [i] ezekiel 22:17 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 18 "Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to Me; they [are] all bronze, tin, iron, and lead, in the midst of a furnace; they have become dross from silver. 19 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Because you have all become dross, therefore behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 20 '[As men] gather silver, bronze, iron, lead, and tin into the midst of a furnace, to blow fire on it, to melt so I will gather [you] in My anger and in My fury, and I will leave [you there] and melt you. [i]21 'Yes, I will gather you and blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and you shall be melted in its midst. 22 'As silver is melted in the midst of a furnace, so shall you be melted in its midst; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have poured out My fury on you.' "

[PioneerSDA]

"And [one] shall say unto him, What [are] these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, [Those] with which I was wounded [in] the house of my friends. " Zechariah 6:13

Surely the Son of God will keep His body forever as a reminder of how much He loved us.

[Xmansmommy]

I don't know if Tony is still posting here at TWeb since this is a very old thread. But if you are Tony, I agree that this has been the most in depth explanation of the resurrection I've read. I thank you for taking the time to write it out so clearly and concisely. :thumb:

[Rusty T]

St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Book IV

Chapter I.—Concerning what followed the Resurrection.

After Christ was risen from the dead He laid aside all His passions, I mean His corruption or hunger or thirst or sleep or weariness or such like. For, although He did taste food after the resurrection, yet He did not do so because it was a law of His nature (for He felt no hunger), but in the way of economy, in order that He might convince us of the reality of the resurrection, and that it was one and the same flesh which suffered and rose again. But He laid aside none of the divisions of His nature, neither body nor spirit, but possesses both the body and the soul intelligent and reasonable, volitional and energetic, and in this wise He sits at the right hand of the Father, using His will both as God and as man in behalf of our salvation, energising in His divine capacity to provide for and maintain and govern all things, and remembering in His human capacity the time He spent on earth, while all the time He both sees and knows that He is adored by all rational creation. For His Holy Spirit knows that He is one in substance with God the Word, and shares as Spirit of God and not simply as Spirit the worship accorded to Him. Moreover, His ascent from earth to heaven, and again, His descent from heaven to earth, are manifestations of the energies of His circumscribed body. For He shall so come again to you, saith he, in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven.


Chapter II.—Concerning the sitting at the right hand of the Father.

We hold, moreover, that Christ sits in the body at the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place? Right hands and left hands belong to what is circumscribed. But we understand the right hand of the Father to be the glory and honour of the Godhead in which the Son of God, who existed as God before the ages, and is of like essence to the Father, and in the end became flesh, has a seat in the body, His flesh sharing in the glory. For He along with His flesh is adored with one adoration by all creation.

[Rusty T]

I don't know if Tony is still posting here at TWeb since this is a very old thread. But if you are Tony, I agree that this has been the most in depth explanation of the resurrection I've read. I thank you for taking the time to write it out so clearly and concisely. :thumb:

So, you agree that Christ is no longer Incarnate?

[Saint Polycarp]

I believe so, but need as much info as I can get :-)

That is why I believe that Jesus Christ has a glorified human body now:

1. Acts 1:11"....This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

SAME indicates that Jesus will have a body upon His return.

2. Philipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven-and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

This verse above states that Jesus Christ has glorious human body, to which our bodies will be trasformed at His coming.


... That's all I could find so far... Any others?

In Christ's love,
Vladimir

Jesus became a man retaining both his human nature and diety, that is the Orthodox Christian belief. He was raised from the dead and walked and ate as a resurected man with a body, that is the Orthodox Christian belief.

The early Church delt with these questions in the first few centuries as various heretical ideas appeared. Some research into the writings of The Early Chuch Fathers and Church councils would aid in your questions.

[InChristAlways]

This phrase, translated "a life-giving spirit" is translated from the words eiV pneuma zwopoioun. An interlinear translation of such would read something like "into [a] spirit giving life." This word ZWOPOIOUN is a word denoting action, not identity. It is not saying he is a "life-giving spirit" as a person that simply gives life, but that he is "[a] spirit [who is] giving life."

A direct comparison can be made between this clause and the one made just before it. Here it says that Adam "became a living soul." We know from reading Genesis 2:7, that his is what Adam actually became:a soul, using the word ZWSAN, which denotes the action of living. This, of course, is contrasted with a dead soul (Ezekiel 18:4). So just as Adam became a soul who was alive, Jesus became a spirit who gives life.

Made Alive in the Spirit
This scripture, much like the last, is all too clear. A direct comparison is made from the way he died to the way he was made alive. It was in the flesh he was put to death, and it was in the spirit he was made alive.


1 Peter 3:18 Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;
Really, this is quite a straight forward scripture. The only question might be of the translations that render this "by the Spirit." Really, there is no basis in grammar for this alternate rendering. While possible, the direct contrast is ignored and a theological bias is truly displayed. The vast majority of modern translations do render this "in the spirit."

Not Always Visible
One of the more interesting things about Jesus is that he often became visible. He was not always such. First, consider that he only became visible to those who God allowed him to. Chapter II.—Concerning the sitting at the right hand of the Father.

We hold, moreover, that Christ sits in the body at the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place? Right hands and left hands belong to what is circumscribed. But we understand the right hand of the Father to be the glory and honour of the Godhead in which the Son of God, who existed as God before the ages, and is of like essence to the Father, and in the end became flesh, has a seat in the body, His flesh sharing in the glory. For He along with His flesh is adored with one adoration by all creation.Hi Tizzidale. I would agree with you, but Paul also mentioned to his followers to not think of Christ in the flesh any longer after they were told to believe in Christ having come in the flesh. Revelation shows Him as a slain Lamb and Glorified, not a man of flesh. Paul saw Him as a "blinding light", not in the flesh.
So why do churches still view Him as in the "body"? But then, the translation could be wrong and thus be viewed differently. Blessings.

(NKJV) 2 Corinthians 5:16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know [Him thus] no longer.

(Rotherham) 2 Corinthians 5:16 So that, we, henceforth, know, no one, after the flesh: if we have even been gaining, after the flesh, a knowledge of Christ,

(Young) 2 Corinthians 5:16 So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more;

(RSV) 2 Corinthians 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.

(ASV) 2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know [him so] no more.

reve 5:6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,

[Chappie]

If Jesus was RAISED in the spirit body, then how can you live with these passages in the Bible?

Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

if you read a little more, you 'll note that:

"Luke 24:41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, "Have you any food here?" 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence"

How can a spirit body eat?

I think that there is very little doubt that Jesus had physical human body after the resurrection... the question is whether He remains in that body.

In Christ,
Vlad

Matthew 26:29
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Matthew 26:28-30 (in Context) Matthew 26 (Whole Chapter)

Fruit of the vine, in heaven of all places. :cheers:

Mark 14:25
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
Mark 14:24-26 (in Context) Mark 14 (Whole Chapter)

Revelation 5 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
Revelation 5
1And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

2And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

[Doubting John]

What Christians have is this:

1) The 2nd Person of the Trinity who existed before time.

2) Jesus, who is God-in-the-flesh--a unique and new being.

3) The resurrected Jesus.

Now keep in mind that Jesus was a fully human being, so any resurrected Jesus must have a body in keeping with his humanity, otherwise he ceased to exist, died, or his humanity was simply discarded. But that cannot be, that God would destroy a sinless man.

Therefore, the resurrected Jesus, being a God-man, is a new and unique being, unlike the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Did God change?
Did the 2nd person of the Trinity take on a human form and now must keep it for all of eternity?
Or are there two beings that now exist from one? That is, the 2nd person of the Trinity discarded his human form to live for the rest of eternity unhindered, letting the human part of him to exist as a separate person in heaven with him?

I think all of these solutions have some serious problems.
Are there any other solutions?
Can you think of the problems?

[Doubting John]

What Christians have is this:

1) The 2nd Person of the Trinity who existed before time.

2) Jesus, who is God-in-the-flesh; a unique and new being.

3) The resurrected Jesus.

Now keep in mind that Jesus was a fully human being, so any resurrected Jesus must have a body in keeping with his humanity, otherwise he ceased to exist, died, or his humanity was simply discarded. But that cannot be, that God would destroy a sinless man.

Therefore, the resurrected Jesus, being a God-man, is a new and unique being, and the being is unlike the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Did God change?
Did the 2nd person of the Trinity take on a human form and now must keep it for all of eternity?
Or are there two beings that now exist from one? That is, the 2nd person of the Trinity discarded his human form to live for the rest of eternity unhindered, letting the human part of him to exist as a separate person in heaven with him?

I think all of these solutions have some serious problems.
Are there any other solutions?
Can you think of the problems?

[InChristAlways]

TIZZIDALE Quote:
St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Book IV

Chapter I.—Concerning what followed the Resurrection.

After Christ was risen from the dead He laid aside all His passions, I mean His corruption or hunger or thirst or sleep or weariness or such like. For, although He did taste food after the resurrection, yet He did not do so because it was a law of His nature (for He felt no hunger), but in the way of economy, in order that He might convince us of the reality of the resurrection, and that it was one and the same flesh which suffered and rose again. But He laid aside none of the divisions of His nature, neither body nor spirit, but possesses both the body and the soul intelligent and reasonable, volitional and energetic, and in this wise He sits at the right hand of the Father, using His will both as God and as man in behalf of our salvation, energising in His divine capacity to provide for and maintain and govern all things, and remembering in His human capacity the time He spent on earth, while all the time He both sees and knows that He is adored by all rational creation. For His Holy Spirit knows that He is one in substance with God the Word, and shares as Spirit of God and not simply as Spirit the worship accorded to Him. Moreover, His ascent from earth to heaven, and again, His descent from heaven to earth, are manifestations of the energies of His circumscribed body. For He shall so come again to you, saith he, in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven.


Chapter II.—Concerning the sitting at the right hand of the Father.

We hold, moreover, that Christ sits in the body at the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place? Right hands and left hands belong to what is circumscribed. But we understand the right hand of the Father to be the glory and honour of the Godhead in which the Son of God, who existed as God before the ages, and is of like essence to the Father, and in the end became flesh, has a seat in the body, His flesh sharing in the glory. For He along with His flesh is adored with one adoration by all creation.

Doubting John Did the 2nd person of the Trinity take on a human form and now must keep it for all of eternity?
Or are there two beings that now exist from one? That is, the 2nd person of the Trinity discarded his human form to live for the rest of eternity unhindered, letting the human part of him to exist as a separate person in heaven with him? Hi DJ. Excellent questions brother and Tizzidale gave a nice little commentary on it.

No where in revelation itself do I see Jesus as "flesh and blood man", do you? [there are those that say He returns "bodily" in the future to reign on earth for a 1000yrs, but I have my doubts on that]

But looky here!!. These "2 witnesses" in revelation 11 get killed by a "beasty beast", then lay dead for 3 and half days, then are given life from God, then are told to "come up here", then taken up in a cloud to heaven, just like Jesus was in Acts 1!!! What they become like after that I can only guess. That will be awsome to see, huh? Any thoughts on this as I am perplexed over it? Thanks.

Reve 11:7 When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies [will lie] in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 11 Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here." And they ascended to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies saw them.

[Doubting John]

If the human nature of Jesus is forever linked to the 2nd person of the Trinity then the full Trinity now includes a man--the human side of Jesus, the man.

Before creation you had the Trinity.
After Jesus' resurrection you have a Trinity plus a human being.
That human being cannot be separated from the Trinity, if Jesus was one person.

I just find this whole thing troublesome.

In heaven the 2nd person of the Trinity must now forever live encapsulated within a human body (a glorious body, howbeit, but a body). Now we have an embodied God--forever. A God who chooses to live within the body of his own creation. This, even though Jesus says that God is a spirit (John 4:24).

This whole thing just seems contrived and is the result of believing that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Contrived. And it has proven impossible to detail how one person can be 100% God and 100% man with neither nature interfering with the other or hindering the other.

[Krusader]

If the human nature of Jesus is forever linked to the 2nd person of the Trinity then the full Trinity now includes a man--the human side of Jesus, the man.

Before creation you had the Trinity.
After Jesus' resurrection you have a Trinity plus a human being.
That human being cannot be separated from the Trinity, if Jesus was one person.

I just find this whole thing troublesome.

In heaven the 2nd person of the Trinity must now forever live encapsulated within a human body (a glorious body, howbeit, but a body). Now we have an embodied God--forever. A God who chooses to live within the body of his own creation. This, even though Jesus says that God is a spirit (John 4:24).

This whole thing just seems contrived and is the result of believing that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Contrived. And it has proven impossible to detail how one person can be 100% God and 100% man with neither nature interfering with the other or hindering the other.

What you fail to note, however, is that the New Testament narrative clearly states that the resurrected Body of the Lord had supernatural qualities - it could move through closed doors, be at more than one place at a time, etc.

The Second Person of the Godhead, Christ the Lord, is fully God and fully Man. Perhaps we can't perfectly understand this - but it is comforting for the Christian to know that we have a God in Heaven who has experienced all that we experience, even death.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Doubting Thomas,


In heaven the 2nd person of the Trinity must now forever live encapsulated within a human body (a glorious body, howbeit, but a body). Now we have an embodied God--forever. A God who chooses to live within the body of his own creation. This, even though Jesus says that God is a spirit (John 4:24).

This whole thing just seems contrived and is the result of believing that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Contrived. And it has proven impossible to detail how one person can be 100% God and 100% man with neither nature interfering with the other or hindering the other.

You are honest. The logical inconsistencies in the trinity you highlight are just the beginnings. It gets worse!

For example, it contradicts the ransom; for if the trinity doctrine be true, some one outside the trinity would have to be the ransomer, since under the theory the trinity's justice would have to be satisfied before it would deal with man; hence somebody outside of the trinity would have to bring the ransom merit to the trinity to satisfy its justice.' It contradicts the ransom from another standpoint, i. e., a member of the trinity could not die; hence could not furnish the ransom. Nor could such a being as the second person of the trinity furnish the exact equivalent of Adam's debt, since a Divine being does not correspond in value to a perfect human being. The trinity doctrine violates not only the doctrines of Creation and Ransom as executed by an Agent of Yahweh, not by Yahweh Himself, but for the same reason contradicts the Bible doctrines of providence, revelation, instruction, justification, sanctification and deliverance.

Indeed it is difficult to point out any Biblical doctrine that is not in some way or other impinged against by the doctrine of the trinity. Hence it cannot be a Biblical doctrine. The usual excuse for these logical inconsistencies is that the trinity is a mystery which must be accepted by faith; but blind faith hardly satisfies the discerning soul.


God bless,

[Hidden Manna]

I believe so, but need as much info as I can get :-)

That is why I believe that Jesus Christ has a glorified human body now:

1. Acts 1:11"....This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven."

SAME indicates that Jesus will have a body upon His return.

2. Philipians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven-and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

This verse above states that Jesus Christ has glorious human body, to which our bodies will be trasformed at His coming.


... That's all I could find so far... Any others?

In Christ's love,
Vladimir

Acts 1:11 is one of the most misunderstood verses in our New Testament! Let's draw some biblical lessons from the Bible to see what the account of Act 1:11 really says. Most people agree that Jesus was in a material body at this time. That is indeed correct. And many also believe that the Angels told the disciples that Jesus will return just as He left-bodily and visible. That is not what our Acts 1:11 says however.

Lets look at the verse 11 where it says: "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) What was the manner that the disciples saw him go into heaven? Verse nine contains the answer. Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. (Acts 1:9) Verse 9 is speaking of the manner in which Jesus went into heaven. What was that manner? A cloud received Him out of their sight.

Now just to see if we are correct in our understanding of the manner in which Jesus would return in these verses, let's ask another question. Did Jesus ever mention returning in the clouds when speaking of His second coming? But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:63-64) The first thing that should be noticed here (Jesus told the high priest he would see his return on the clouds of heaven not us today.

And then there is this verse. "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matthew 24:30)." As you can see, these verses bear witness that Jesus returned in like manner to that of His departure. A cloud, or clouds, is the key. Clouds of course also speak of vengeance, wrath, and judgment against the enemies of God. (See Isaiah 19) Jesus was Jewish, and this was the reason why he chose to use Jewish apocalyptic language as He described His soon return to the people of His day. (Matthew 26: 63-64) The angels in Acts 1: 11 never made any kind of contradiction from anything that Jesus had already said.

Jesus as did Paul used many types and shadows from the Old Testament scriptures. Where did Jesus get all the concepts of God riding on clouds and stuff from? The Old Testament. He is the very same God who was riding the clouds in judgment. This is a very big problem if you don't understand the Jewish apocalyptic mind.

Many of us today face the same problem that confronted Jesus- trying to explain spiritual truth to those who insist on carnal literal interpretations to spiritual things. God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24)

[Pythagoras]

Hi Hidden Manna,

Most of your post is pretty good, but you go terribly wrong here:



Jesus as did Paul used many types and shadows from the Old Testament scriptures. Where did Jesus get all the concepts of God riding on clouds and stuff from? The Old Testament. He is the very same God who was riding the clouds in judgment. This is a very big problem if you don't understand the Jewish apocalyptic mind.



When Jesus said he would return with the clouds of heaven at his second coming, he was refering to himself directly in the prophecy of Daniel , to the Son of Man pictured there, not to God Almighty.



"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."
- Daniel 7:13


If you read Daniel, you will clearly see that God(Yahweh) and the Son of Man are two separate, distinct entities. And the Jewish apocalyptic mind you talk of would never have fathomed God Almighty as the Son of Man.

[Hidden Manna]

Hi Hidden Manna,

Most of your post is pretty good, but you go terribly wrong here:



When Jesus said he would return with the clouds of heaven at his second coming, he was refering to himself directly in the prophecy of Daniel , to the Son of Man pictured there, not to God Almighty.



"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."
- Daniel 7:13


If you read Daniel, you will clearly see that God(Yahweh) and the Son of Man are two separate, distinct entities. And the Jewish apocalyptic mind you talk of would never have fathomed God Almighty as the Son of Man.

Hi Pythagoras,

You may be right about the Jews would never have fathomed God Almighty as the [i]Son of Man, however you go terribly wrong when you say that God(Yahweh) and the Son of Man are two separate, distinct entities. Jesus and the Father are one and Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

Understanding Apocalyptic Language

Sometimes we discover statements, which disturb our preconceived ideas and challenge us to rethink long held views. Such is the case with II Thessalonians 2:1-2. If the day of the Lord is, as you and I have always been taught, a time ending, universe destroying event, how in the world could the Thessalonians ever have been convinced, as they obviously were, that the day of the Lord had ALREADY COME?

The same could be said of the passage in II Timothy. If the resurrection is when all the physical graves are opened, when Jesus bodily, visibly descends on a cloud with the audible sound of a trumpet: how could any one convince those at Ephesus that it had already happened? The point is, Paul did not challenge the teaching concerning the nature of the day. He only challenged the chronology so these first century saints held another concept or understand of the (day of Lord) then what we have been traditionally taught. Buy what was there understand the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven?
First we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew who was familiar with Jewish prophetic thought in the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17, 13:17; Luke 2:41-47, 24:27).

In order to understand how the manifestation of the “Son of man” in the judgment upon Jerusalem was on the “clouds of heaven,” one must understand the language of Israel’s Old Testament prophets. In biblical language “clouds” are symbolic of God’s wrath and judgment against the enemies of God’s people. David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). Of course, clouds also speak of God’s divine presence and power.

The Lord said that He would ride into Egypt on a cloud to punish them: Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt. The idol of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them. (Isa. 19: 1). In the above verse. the Lord did NOT literally ride on a cloud. However. Egypt did receive this judgment at the hands of the Assyrians (Isa. 20:1-6) . When God used the means of a nation or people to carry out a judgment. He was said to come on the clouds.

This apocalyptic language was well known to all in the Jewish and early Christian communities. This language was studied by all the congregation of Israel on the Sabbath in the synagogues, it was spoken in homes and by the rulers of Israel. This is the reason Jesus chose to use apocalyptic language as He described His SOON return to the people of His day. Jesus promised the High Priest. Caiaphas. that he would “see the Son of man... coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:63-65). By this statement Jesus was claiming to be divine, Israel’s Messiah, and the Son of God.

This is how Israel’s prophets had said the Son of Man would come in the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13-14). Caiaphas knew that the language that Jesus used meant that he, as a ruler of Israel and as the fleshly seed of Abraham who rejected his Messiah, would SEE His return in judgment . A fleshly concept of Jesus coming on the clouds was contrary to the nature of Caiaphas’ understanding of the OT prophets.

The Old Testament idea of the “day of the Lord” was that God acted by means of armies or a nation to judge His enemies (Luke 11:29-32, 19:43-44). The “day of the Lord” was tumultuous, frightening, and awesome—but God did NOT appear visibly. Only the God of Israel could ride the clouds of heaven in judgment (Psa. 104:1-3. Isa. 19:1-3. Joel 2:1-2, Nah. 1-3. Zeph. 1:14-15). This fact was well known to every Jew.

The inspired apostle John stated that the Jews sought the more to kill Jesus because He was making himself equal to God (Jn 5:18, 8:58). These events of God coming in the clouds of heaven for judgment were contained in the ancient scrolls which comforted the early followers of Christ while then, waited for His return in judgment against their enemies (2Thes. 1:3-8). The Bible says that Jesus is the same yesterday. today and forever (Heb. 13:8).

Paul stated that he only said what the prophets and Moses said would take place (Acts 26:21-22). Although futurists today claim that verses such as Acts 1:9-11 predict events in our future. the angels said Jesus would return in the same manner (nature) as He appeared in the Old Testament, that is. in the clouds. David described his deliverance from his enemies in terms which sounded as if the physical universe was destroyed when Jehovah came down from heaven ( 2 Sam. 22)

The “day of the Lord” in the Old Covenant did not destroy planet earth, nor did it end time forever, nor would it do so under the New Covenant (compare Isa. 45:17 and Eph. 3:21). In the Old Covenant governments and nations were destroyed during the “day of the Lord” because they were enemies of God or because the, came up against His chosen people. In the first century in 70 A.D.. the Jewish world was destroyed during the “day of the Lord” because of their inability to accept the prophets of God and the Son of God (Matt.23:34-36).

The destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. put an end to the Old Covenant. In its place, the New Covenant, which began at the Last Supper came into its fullness. The second and final coming of Christ occurred in 70 A.D as Jesus invisibly and spiritually came on the clouds of heaven to judge His enemies and establish His everlasting kingdom.

This is how the church at Thessalonica had mistakenly begun to believe that the coming of Jesus was IMMINENT. They never had the concept of a literal physical coming of Jesus on literal physical cloud. They held the Old Testament understand that Paul taught them. Remember there is not (one words) from Paul were he writes to correct any problems of their understanding (about the nature) of that day. Paul did not challenge the teaching concerning the nature of the day. He only challenged the chronology.
Now here are some questions we should ask.

(1) Were in the New Testament scriptures does the Son of man say his New Testament Parousia was not to be like his Old Testament Parousia?
(2) Were in the Old Testament scriptures does it say anyone literal saw God coming down riding a literal cloud? David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). Of course. “clouds” also speak of God’s divine presence and power but no one literally saw him.
(3) Were in the New Testament scripture does Paul say he is (not teaching) these Old Testament concepts of the day of Lord? Remember Paul was also a Jew who familiar with Jewish prophetic thought in the Old Testament.
(4) Were is the scripture does Jesus who is the very same God in the Old Testament say his Parousia in the New Testament is new to be understood as a literal Parousia.

The only thing that comes close is Revelation 1:7 Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Even so. Amen. But notice Zechariah 12:10-14.

The main purpose of Revelations was the revealing of Jesus to the “tribes of the earth (or land).” Now, we must identify, from Scripture, who those “tribes” were. To do that, we must keep in mind this simple rule of interpreting the Bible: let Scripture interpret Scripture. We can do that quite easily by looking at Zechariah 12:10-14.

And I will pour out on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and prayers. And they (i.e., the inhabitants of Jerusalem) shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for Him. As one mourns, for an only son, and will be bitter over Him like the bitterness over the firstborn. In that day (i.e., when they look on Him whom they had pierced) the mourning in Jerusalem will be great, like the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, families by families alone; the family of the house of David alone, and their wives alone; the family of Nathan alone, and their wives alone; the family of the house of Levi alone, and their wives alone; the family of Shimei alone, and their wives alone; all the families who are left, family by family alone, and their wives alone.

What (that day). The day of the Lord. Obviously, this is the foundation for John’ “every eye will see Him and those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth (or land) will wail due to Him.” The Hebrew word for “family” is mishpachah and it means “family; by extension a tribe or people.” So, in essence, Zechariah was saying that the “tribes of the land” would mourn for Him whom they had pierced. Who were those “tribes?” “The inhabitants of Jerusalem.” This also helps us identify the “earth” in Revelation 1:7. According to Zechariah, the “earth” is the land of Palestine, specifically, Jerusalem. Also, it is those tribes, i.e., the nation of Israel, who would “look on Me whom they had pierced.” And because of that, “the mourning in Jerusalem” would be great. With all of this information, we can see that the “tribes of the earth” in Revelation 1:7 are the nation of Israel. The “earth” is Palestine. The land that would mourn is Jerusalem.

So, the main purpose of Revelation would be to reveal Jesus the nation of Israel. The place of this revealing would be Jerusalem. Lastly, this revealing would be to those who pierced Him, i.e., the Jews. This is not a general reference to the Jewish nation as some commentators state, but to Christ’s contemporary generation, that generation was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Legions. Therefore, the book of Revelation must have been written before that event.

I will be more then happy to see any answers to these questions with scripture.
(1) Were in the New Testament scriptures does the Son of man say his New Testament Parousia was not to be like his Old Testament Parousia?
(2) Were in the Old Testament scriptures does it say anyone literal saw God coming down riding a literal cloud? David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). Of course. clouds also speak of God’s divine presence and power but no one literally say him.
(3) Were in the New Testament scripture does Paul say he is (not teaching) these Old Testament concepts of the day of Lord? Remember Paul was also a Jew who familiar with Jewish prophetic thought in the Old Testament.
(4) Were in the scripture does Jesus who is the very same God in the Old Testament say his Parousia in the New Testament is new to be understood as a literal Parousia.


The problems with the traditional literal view of Acts 1:11

First, it is agreed by all that Acts 1:11, “...this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,” refers to the Parousia. Jesus used the term “parousia,” (presence) four times in Matthew 24, speaking of his return. But lest look at all the context

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Often times we preterist hear the argument from futurists that Acts chapter 1 is speaking of a literal physical coming of Jesus Christ. I have heard this argument from Dispensationalists. But is there another biblical alternative for these three verses? Never is valid understanding exegesis and hermeneutical science all of this more critical than when dealing with the text this treatise is concerned with, namely, Luke’s record of the words concerning the return of Jesus in Acts 1:11.

I would like to examine this passage as it is, used by the futurist and deal with it as logically and thoroughly as possible. We will look at the “Problem Stated” from the futurist’s perspective. Act 1:11 is one of the most misunderstood verse in our New Testament assimilating spiritual truths! Let’s draw some biblical lessons from the Bible to see what the account of Act 1:11 really say. Most people agree that Jesus was in a material body at this time. That is indeed correct and all futurist also believe. The Angels tell the disciples that Jesus will return just as He left bodily and visible correct? Problem one. That is NOT what Acts 1:11 says.

Lets tack a closer look at the verse...11 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) What was the (manner ) that the disciples saw him go into heaven? Verse nine contains the answer. Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. (Acts 1:9) Verse 9 speaking of the (manner of Jesus’ going into heaven). What was that manner? A cloud received Him out of their sight.

The two Greek words that Luke uses in the construct (OUTOS…TRAPON) specifically means, “the same manner.” The angels verify that Christ would return in the “same manner.” Just reverse the order. So when Christ returned, it would be “in a cloud, OUT of their sight.” Just like it happened. (Matt. 24:30) Here is the Hebrew Cloud: CLOUD ‘anan OT:6051, “cloud; fog; storm cloud; smoke.” Cognates of this word appear in Aramaic and Arabic. Its 87 appearances are scattered throughout the biblical material. ; (b) of the “cloud” which covered Israel in the Red Sea, 1 Cor 10:1-2; (c), “The cloud, of course, symbolizes the Divine Glory of God,

Problem two. The angels tied Christ’s coming to (the disciples). They stated, “This Jesus, who was received up from you (the disciples) into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye (the disciples) beheld him going into heaven” (verse 11). Jesus stated the same thing on numerous occasions. Worth noting is Matthew 16:27-28. There Jesus said, “For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. {28} Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign’ “

Did Jesus ever mention returning in the clouds other places when speaking of His Parousia ? But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63-64) The first thing that should be noticed here (Jesus told the high priest he would see his return on the clouds of heaven not us.

And then this verse, then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matthew 24:30) As you can see, these verses bear witness that Jesus returned in like manner to that of His departure. A cloud, or clouds, is the key. Clouds of course also speak of vengeance, wrath, and judgment against the enemies of God. (Isaiah 19) Jesus was also a Jew, this is one of the reason why he chose to use Jewish apocalyptic language as He described His soon return to the people of His day. (Matthew 26: 63-64) The angels in Acts 1: 11 never made any kind of contradiction from anything that Jesus had already said.

Jesus as Paul used many types and shadow from the Old Testament scriptures. Where did Jesus get all the concepts of God riding on clouds and stuff from? The Old Testament. He is the very same God who was riding the clouds in judgment. This is a very big problem for the literal minded futurists.

So with all that said. Aren’t we all supposed to be able to defend what we believe from the Old Testament as well since that is where Jesus and Paul taught from. Where does it say that a Old Testament writer literally saw God riding on a literal cloud in judgment? It all came to pass in 70 A.D. just as Jesus said it would to the high priest. (Matthew 26: 63-64)

Many of us today face the same problem that confronted Jesus- trying to explain spiritual truth to those who insist on carnal literal interpretations to spiritual things. God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24) For people who are supposed to be spiritual people I will never understand your literal mind set.

Ok with all that said it leads us to two questions.
(1) Were is the scripture were it say a Old Testament writer literally saw God riding on a literal cloud in judgment?
(2) The angels tied Christ’s coming to (the disciples). They stated, “This Jesus, who was received up from you (the disciples) into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye (the disciples) beheld him going into heaven” (verse 11). Jesus stated the same thing on numerous occasions. Worth noting is Matthew 16:27-28. there Jesus said, “For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. {28} Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign’ “

Where is the scripture what say we today are the one to see him coming in the clouds?

The problems with the traditional literal view of Acts 1:11
The parousia was said to be at hand (engus) or near in respect to time, when James wrote in or about A.D.60, just 10 years before the demise of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming (parousia) of the Lord. Behold the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming (parousia) of the Lord draweth nigh,” (is at hand, engus). Berry’s interlinear literally translates, “...has drawn near” (Jas.5:7,8).

Now, if one considers the fact that Acts 1:11 is speaking of the parousia (though the word “parousia” is not used in the text), then we have: (1) Jesus saying that Acts 1:11 would occur, be fulfilled, in “this (first century) generation,” and (2) James saying that Acts 1:11 is at hand in respect to time about A.D.60. What further proof is needed to show that the parousia (Acts 1:11) was at hand than a direct scriptural reference that uses both terms, “parousia” and “engus” in the same text? Any interpretation of Acts 1:11 that fails to honor the time limitations for the parousia is not “exegesis” but “eisegesis”! The only escape is to deny that Acts 1:11 is speaking of the parousia. Are we ready for that?

John 14:18-21 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
“A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

Please note - the world would not see Him anymore. The only possible interpretation to this is that they would not see Jesus literally because we are told He would come on clouds to judge as in the Old Testament.

(1) Were is the scripture were it say a Old Testament writer literally saw God riding on a literal cloud in judgment?
(2) The angels tied Christ’s coming to (the disciples). They stated, “This Jesus, who was received up from you (the disciples) into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye (the disciples) beheld him going into heaven” (verse 11). Jesus stated the same thing on numerous occasions. Worth noting is Matthew 16:27-28. there Jesus said, “For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. {28} Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign’ “

Where is the scripture that say we today are the ones to see him coming in the clouds?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Hidden Manna,



Thanks for the reply, but most of your post is off topic to the querry at hand, Son of Man = Yahweh...


You may be right about the Jews would never have fathomed God Almighty as the Son of Man, however you go terribly wrong when you say that God(Yahweh) and the Son of Man are two separate, distinct entities. Jesus and the Father are one and Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

If that's the case then you're taking Daniel's intent out of context, because Daniel in his writings did not fathom the Son of Man as a hypostasis of God, as you yourself admit. You're left with the unpleasant conclusion that Daniel did not understand his own prophecy, and you a trinitarian, over 2500 years after the fact, comprehend it more than the prophet himself did.



In order to understand how the manifestation of the “Son of man” in the judgment upon Jerusalem was on the “clouds of heaven,” one must understand the language of Israel’s Old Testament prophets. In biblical language “clouds” are symbolic of God’s wrath and judgment against the enemies of God’s people. David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). Of course, clouds also speak of God’s divine presence and power.



Even if you're right, how does that prove the Son of Man is an hypostasis of God Almighty? Please note for your refrence that the "clouds of heaven " refers to the angelic host(as also to the host of the redeemed Saints).


First we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew who was familiar with Jewish prophetic thought in the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17, 13:17; Luke 2:41-47, 24:27).



Abslolutely, and like a good Jew he would never consider himself a "hypostasis" of Yahweh.

best wishes,



Read Daniel carefully, the son of man and God are two clearly different, separate entities. Not one verse there suggests the Son of Man is an hypostasis of Yahweh. You're taking Daniel's words horribly out of context.


best wishes,

[Topherlee]

I think what everyone fails to recognize is that Jesus was a spirit before coming to earth. He was indeed the firstborn of all creation. He is God's only begotten Son. I believe as he returns to his Father YHWH, he may indeed return as a spirit. Compare the image in Daniel 10:5,6 to Revelations 1:13-15. There are two different authors yet the physical description is similar. Angels are known to be spirit creatures also. The image in Daniel is the angel Gabriel and in Revelations it is Jesus.

[Hidden Manna]

I think what everyone fails to recognize is that Jesus was a spirit before coming to earth. He was indeed the firstborn of all creation. He is God's only begotten Son. I believe as he returns to his Father YHWH, he may indeed return as a spirit. Compare the image in Daniel 10:5,6 to Revelations 1:13-15. There are two different authors yet the physical description is similar. Angels are known to be spirit creatures also. The image in Daniel is the angel Gabriel and in Revelations it is Jesus.


This discussion opens a “can of worms” doctrinally speaking, as this doctrine lies at the very core of the Christian faith, supposedly - according to Creedalists and traditionists anyway. “If you deny the PHYSICAL resurrection of Christ” (they say, authoritatively) “you deny the Christian faith, and are no more than a heretic or worse”. SO...this idea that Christ Jesus rose from the grave PHYSICALLY (which I subscribed to myself, for many years) must be examined and critiqued carefully and with the utmost care taken to evaluate the language, inferences and context associated with all texts relevant to this event.

One of the most popular passages of Scripture associated with this subject is 1Corinthians 15. Paul goes engages in a lengthy homily on the subject of the resurrection, and in actual fact - at no point in this passage does he specify that CHRIST’S resurrection was, indeed, PHYSICAL. In fact, he does the opposite. Without going through the passage verse by verse, suffice it to say that Paul clearly states (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that Christ was raised a SPIRIT being.

45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual .47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1Cor. 15:45-50)

In the context, then, of Paul’s homily on the resurrection concept, he clearly states (above, in v.45) that Christ Jesus was made a “life-giving SPIRIT”. The argument that Christ ascended into heaven in bodily, physical form, then, is totally defeated by this statement. Paul’s subsequent statements, as highlighted above, further emphasize and reiterate the point that physical bodies ARE NOT PERMITTED entrance into God’s Presence in heaven. Those who dwell with God in the heavenlies have spirit forms, NOT physical bodies.

Christ Jesus Himself made this very clear in His defense of the resurrection to the Sadducees, in Matt. 22:30, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven .” There is no marrying or giving in marriage in “the resurrection” (the place to which the saints were resurrected, in the First Century - the heavenly Promised Land) because those who participate in it and dwell in heaven eternally ARE LIKE THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN. They do not PROCREATE, because they are NON-PHYSICAL SPIRIT BEINGS, like the angels. We know the angels are non-physical spirit beings through the clear statements of many texts such as Heb. 1:7, “And of the angels He says: “ Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.”

Christ’s tomb was empty because the angels “spirited” His physical, pre-death body away (the physical body He possessed during His earthly ministry). NO-ONE witnessed Christ walking out of the tomb and handled him physically to verify that at the moment of his exiting the tomb He possessed His previous, physical body. In actual fact, Christ rose from “the dead” (the place of the dead - Sheol) as a Living Being, in SPIRIT form. He could assume any appearance He chose, which is why the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn’t immediately recognize Him as He conversed with them, and why when they DID recognize Him, He immediately VANISHED OUT OF THEIR SIGHT (as SPIRIT BEINGS are capable to do, but which action PHYSICAL BEINGS are not capable of).

13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him ... 30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.

It COULD be argued that this instance of His post-resurrection appearances to His disciples was evidence of God’s hand upon THEM, in blinding them to Christ’s true identity until a specific moment in their interactions. In other words, some might argue that this anecdote doesn’t speak directly to Christ’s post-resurrection form, but to His disciples’ perceptions, as governed by God. But let us consider other texts in conjunction with the one above, to see if there is further clarification elsewhere.

40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God , even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead (Acts 10:40,41)

This Jesus who was raised from the dead was an interesting Being. He was not readily visible to just anyone alive in those days. Rather, it was necessary to SHOW Him to people (i.e. to MANIFEST Him to people). Spirit beings have always had the capacity to take on physical form for brief periods of time, MANIFESTING themselves in physical form for various reasons. We see this in God’s appearance to Abraham, where He appeared to him in the form of three men and actually LUNCHED with Abraham. We see the angel physically WRESTLING with Jacob in Genesis also, and other instances of spirit beings taking on physical characteristics and appearance for a time, to accomplish a specific purpose. I believe the bulk of the Scriptural evidence (which hasn’t been presented here in this introductory post by any means), shows that Christ Jesus ALSO had this type of form.

The one text most commonly used to attempt to refute the idea that Christ’s resurrection was strictly spiritual is His appearance to Thomas and His words to Him, found in Luke 24:39, “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Christ Jesus SEEMS to be stating that He is NOT a “resurrected spirit being” here. But if we consider His actual words carefully, it becomes evident that He is inferring, or implying, that He is not a disembodied “ghost” or “deceiving spirit”, but that He WAS, in fact, the risen Lord. The whole point of these manifestations of Himself, physically, to His followers, was to confirm that His PERSON was raised from Sheol, and His spirit was NOT still imprisoned, awaiting the resurrection, like their forefathers.

Christ was concerned that His followers understand that the Person with whom they were interacting was HIM, and not just a phantom or spectre, tricking them into thinking that He had risen. A mere “spirit” of a departed person does not manifest physical qualities (not until it is resurrected and glorified, anyway) but a resurrected SPIRIT BEING (a person who has experienced resurrection) and has taken on a “heavenly form”, is essentially spirit in essence, and yet has the capacity to manifest himself physically, at will.

If Christ possessed the IDENTICAL physical body He had on the cross and before, during His earthly ministry, He would NOT have been able to pass through closed, locked doors and materialize in front of His disciples (John 20:19ff.), nor could He dematerialize in front of their eyes (like He did with the disciples on their way to Emmaus).

If Christ possessed the very same physical body that went INTO the tomb, it would not have been necessary for God to MAKE HIM VISIBLE to select witnesses to His resurrection (per the statements in Acts 10, above).

[Doubting John]

Topherlee:
I think what everyone fails to recognize is that Jesus was a spirit before coming to earth. He was indeed the firstborn of all creation. He is God's only begotten Son. I believe as he returns to his Father YHWH, he may indeed return as a spirit. Compare the image in Daniel 10:5,6 to Revelations 1:13-15. There are two different authors yet the physical description is similar. Angels are known to be spirit creatures also. The image in Daniel is the angel Gabriel and in Revelations it is Jesus.

Hmmm.

So then, if the person of Jesus is fully God and also a fully human being, then what happened to the human being side to Jesus after the resurrection?

That's my question, again.

[Hidden Manna]

Topherlee:


Hmmm.

So then, if the person of Jesus is fully God and also a fully human being, then what happened to the human being side to Jesus after the resurrection?

That's my question, again.

1Cor. 15: 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

[InChristAlways]

Hmmm.
So then, if the person of Jesus is fully God and also a fully human being, then what happened to the human being side to Jesus after the resurrection?
That's my question, again.
1Cor. 15: 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.Good quote. I can't find anything in revelation showing Jesus as a "flesh and blood man" except for places that show one "like unto a son of man" and as a "slain Lamb" or other manifestations. Blessings.

Reve 5:6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Reve 19:11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes [were] like a flame of fire, and on His head [were] many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He [was] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

[apostoli]

Hi Guys,

Random thoughts:

Some things that have always puzzled me with official dogma...

1. If neither flesh nor blood can inherit the kingdom, how can we inherit it if we are resurrected in the flesh?
2. If we are resurrected in our original flesh (eg: as Jesus appeared to Thomas) then, why would we want to be resurrected if we had a major infirmity?

Seems to me, we are resurrected "physically" but in another form.

A couple of other things that puzzle me...

If Jesus is God (of the same substance as the Father) and has a body in heaven. Then He, the Father and the Spirit must all have the same type of body, which constrains God (God is suppose to be without limit).

If Jesus has a body in heaven, then he has a different substance to the Father & HS (even though as the Logos He was one in substance with them). Therefore, He is no longer God (at least in a Trinitarian sense).

According to the OT only a perfect sacrifice can atone for sin. As sin came into the world via a perfectly created man=Adam, sin was crushed by the sacrifice of the second Adam=Jesus. There was no requirement for God to be a sacrifice, only an equivalent perfect man was necessary. If Jesus was God-man then it was necessary (as a perfect sacrifice) to die as God-man. That is both his natures as God and as man had to die.

I realize that the usual argument is that only his humanity died and a reference is made to A.Paul to "fear not they, that can kill your body, because they cannot kill your soul." But the popular interpretation of this text seems (to me) to bend toward the Greek philosophers idea of the immortal soul (which is only logical in an LDS type conviction).

My understanding is that the Jewish conception is/was "when you are dead, you are dead" no ifs or buts, you cease to exist, body, soul and spirit! This is where the resurrection comes in. God reinvents you!

[Doubting John]

Apostoli:

This is where the resurrection comes in. God reinvents you!

John Hick in Death and Eternal Life argues that God places within a new created human body in the resurrection your mind, thoughts and memory. This is much like how the hardware (body) of a computer needs its software (the mind) to run.

But still the question arises, is the 2nd person of the Trinity different now with a human resurrected glorified body than he was before? He would have to, otherwise God caused a human being (Jesus' human side) to be forever lost, discarded, forgotten.

[apostoli]

Hi Doubting John,

John Hick in Death and Eternal Life argues that God places within a new created human body in the resurrection your mind, thoughts and memory. This is much like how the hardware (body) of a computer needs its software (the mind) to run.I guess it comes down to the old philosophical question of "What is me?".

I believe me, is not my body but my being the things that people perceive me by (eg: my tone of voice). An example: a couple of years ago I was visting the ruins of Ephesus and a Taxi driver stopped, got out of his car and called to me "Ozzie, Ozzie. Oi oi oi". Later I asked a Turkish friend "How did the guy know I was Australian?" Apparently, it is the way I walked!

But still the question arises, is the 2nd person of the Trinity different now with a human resurrected glorified body than he was before? He would have to, otherwise God caused a human being (Jesus' human side) to be forever lost, discarded, forgotten.Using your analogy to computers: I think the solution is in the memory, not in the substance.

A.Paul speaks of us being "reborn" not as in flesh but in spirit. Though I immediately conceive the ressurection as a fleshly one; I do not perceive this as my current flesh. As the philosopher in me says: What is flesh but a cloth that covers the nakedness of our soul.