Featured Reasons for the 2nd Coming of Christ

Since full preterism is well nigh indefensible in light of a proper Christology, you do well to quit trying to defend it. I note that you have come out saying that Christ has no physical body now, which is a huge affront to the precious doctrine of the Incarnation (not to mention completely without Biblical support as to when and how that supposedly happened). I would be just as happy if you quit posting on the BB altogether and spreading your error.

 

Exactly!

 

That's like saying, "I've never seen a purple cow, and never hope to see one. But I can tell you one thing now, I'd rather see than be one."

The last we hear from Jesus about His body is a denial that He was a bodiless spirit, and an affirmation that He had "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). Since at last word Jesus claimed a physical body, it is up to you to prove when He abandoned that physical body. But you cannot do that, since there is absolutely no Scripture claiming what you say.

I don't remember you ever asking it. But I'll tell you what. I'll answer this as soon as you answer what I've asked several times on this thread (specifically to you at least once) about how John 14:1-3 was fulfilled in AD 70.

I stand with the Apostle John, who fled the baths when he heard Cerinthus was there, lest God's judgment fall on him as well as Cerinthus, who was a Gnostic and denied the physical body of Christ. John was as orthodox as anyone in all of church history, but believed in a physical Jesus.

You've not really defended anything on this thread, much less your egregious error that Christ has no body now.

But I thought you had abandoned the thread.

 

You have to be kidding me. You claim that I don't understand the Incarnation, but here you are thinking the OT Jesus and the NT Jesus are the same? What in the world is the Incarnation if not that Jesus took upon Himself a human form? Isaiah saw the preincarnate Christ!

And I certainly look forward and long for the day when all true believers will be like Him: sinless, perfect.

 

Are you trying to tell me that He did not take upon Himself the form of a servant, as Phil. 2 says? If so, then you are denying the incarnation. I've never heard of such a tangled web of thinking about the incarnation. Now you are intimating that Jesus never had a human body. Or maybe He always had one? I can't tell what you mean.

What Hebrew verses? You've not mentioned the Hebrew.

And talk about denigrating people: "I didn't expect you to."

 

You say Christ does not now have a body. The Gnostics said He never did. I see a close similarity.

But I have given clear Scripture over and over about the 2nd Coming. In fact, this whole thread is full of Scripture from me and others that you have not answered about the positive results of Christ's 2nd Coming. Not one single one of those positive results happened in AD 70. All that happened then was judgment.

And you have the absolute gall to say that I don't give Scripture, and that you are a preterist because the opponents of preterism do a poor job. I say that you have failed entirely on the grounds of the OP of this thread. You can't even answer what I've asked three times: When did Jesus gather His disciples as in John 14:1-3?

 

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. I have no idea what you are saying. How did Jesus fulfill John 14:1-3 in AD 70? And what in the world do sheep stalls have to do with the passage?

 

You intimated right here that Christ in the OT and Christ in the NT were the same. You can't deny it. It's here for anyone to read. And I phrased my Phil. 2 comment as a question so as not to misrepresent me. You sure have a thin skin.

 

Here it is, folks, where asterisktom suggests that the Jesus of the OT and the Jesus of the NT are exactly the same--which if true means there was no Incarnation. I don't think he is denying the Incarnation, I just think he has no idea what he is saying.

As to my not answering his two "Hebrew verses," I suppose he means verses from the book of Hebrews, or "Hebrews verses," not verses in Hebrew. (He gave no references for his quotes.) So concerning Jesus being the same as per Hebrews 13:8, it is in the context of His always being with us always (v. 5), so it is speaking about Jesus as God, which He always has been and always will be. The verse has no contextual connection with the Incarnation.

I suppose the other verse he meant was "days of His flesh," which is in Heb. 5:7--"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." This is referring to His near death from hematidrosis in the Garden of Gethsemane, at a time when He was limited to a normal human body instead of a glorified physical body. It certainly doesn't mean that Christ no longer has a physical body.