Poor proof that Christ has a physical body now

He should have said what he meant, then. I took it as a completely toothless threat. Never, ever tell someone on the BB that they "must stand trial." The syntax and semantics of that statement indicated a threat.

 

Of course it was about the incarnation. Anything about the humanity of Christ is about His incarnation. That's what the incarnation is all about: Jesus becoming human.

 

Because he hasn't yet categorically rejected the linguistically ridiculous doctrine of preterism, as far as I can tell.

 

What I wrote was:

You're quick to accuse me of heresy. Now you must stand trial. ​

Only half that sentence was taken up for comment. This often happens. I've been accused of what I haven't said, because you folk are too quick to condemn me, so you draw unwarranted conclusions & so to refute your own deliberate misunderstandings.

What I meant was that you (John) must answer to my charge of heresy by answer P70's question. "Is Jesus limited" with "Yes."

I referred to the thread title:

"Poor proof that Christ has a physical body now"​

Notice the word "NOW"

So John replies:

"Of course it was about the incarnation. Anything about the humanity of Christ is about His incarnation. That's what the incarnation is all about: Jesus becoming human."​

As Paul wrote:

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.​

It's up to you folk to prove from Scripture that Jesus, in his present glorified humanity, IS limited. NOT during his time of earth in the flesh, when his limitations are recorded.

 

Once you or Tcass actually prove this, then ill reject it. So far, nothing that refutes it.

Just a bunch of "this word can mean this here, Why? because you are ignorant of the Greek".

 

By misquoting the title - Poor proof that Christ has a physical body now." and putting a full stop after body and omitted now you are showing deliberate misquoting.

Your etymology lesson was irrelevant.

 

Even I understood that, and Im not a language expert

I think the more "knowledge" gained, the "plain and simple" becomes harder to spot.

 

Has he a physical human body NOW? Is there a proof text? Or is it inferred from Act 1:11?

And no you don't need to teach me English. Why do you ask? Synecdoche is not in my vocabulary & it certainly isn't basic English:

Late Middle English: via Latin from Greek sunekdokhē​

It doesn't mean leaving out a key word when you quote.

 

I agree. I believe the natural body of Jesus that was buried was raised physical yet of spiritual nature rather of being of natural nature.

My understanding being his physical flesh body was no longer living, because of life being in the blood but of life of the Spirit.

I will continue to study.

 

I stand on Scripture, not "the orthodox" position. Most of the 2,000 years was dominated by the RC church & the Orthodox church. And most of it by Christians holding church-state links. Independent baptists have been a persecuted minority since Constantine.

His glorification, after his ascension:

4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.​

 

Do we shed our resurrected bodies too?

 

I'll ask again. Will we shed our resurrected bodies too?

 

They would say that no body to shed, as its not a physical but a spiritual resurrection!