Christ's Return: Spiritual or Physical?

The insulting part was not that my biblical interpretation was challenged, but that it was described as "convoluted dancing around." That's disrespectful, especially since I didn't knowingly do that. If I referred to your line of thinking as a 'close-minded avoidance of scriptural teaching you don't like,' I'm sure you would find that insulting as well.

Actually, I did, but you seem to have missed it. Probably because you interpret a number of concepts differently. I could not help but notice you did not respond to my attempt to clarify terms.

Examining context is the foundational principle of biblical interpretation. The passage is talking about Christ as our Great High Priest becoming human, and representing humankind outside of the Law. Is Jesus still our Great High Priest? If so, He is still in a glorified human body.

I'm not thin-skinned, but I took your insult as evidence you don't care to have a real conversation. That view is now confirmed.

 

You are completely mistaken. The very same body they saw ascend is the body that Jesus explicitly described to them during this post-resurrection period by the very terms "flesh and bone" during this 40 day period. What they saw was "him" rather than the "manner." The "manner" refers to the in flight transition between earth and heaven. What they saw was the very "same" him they had just been communing with:

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 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.

 

You are ignoring the bulk of the post which does not deal with post-resurrection but with the form that asended into heaven. My point for saying "post-resurrection" was to describe the "form" of his body which was composed of the materials "flesh and bone." Don't side step the issue by pointing to a non-essential.

 

How? You have explicitly stated that this text does not refer to his "form" but only to his "manner" and you are wrong because it refers to BOTH his form (bodily form = flesh and bone = visible) as =well as to his "manner" = transition between heaven in earth.

 

Brother, you need to go back and read your own words. You explicitly DENIED this text refers to the "form" of his departure and here are your own words to show that:

But it shows the manner Christ went and was to return. Manner, not form.

He went in a cloud. And in the cloud He was then out of their sight. There is no explicit mention of a corporeal (flesh-and-bones) body.

Do you see the bold underscored words in your statement??? Do you see the negative particle "NOT" used by you to modify the word "form"? In plain English you are denying this text reveals the form of his departure and then you make sure we understand what you are denying by additionally saying - "There is no explcit mention of a corporeal (flesh-and-bones) body" as though the explicit language had to be present for that "form" to be present.

I never wrote these words but you did and anyone can understand easily what you said. If you did not mean to say that, ok, correct it, but you did say it.

His form is demanded by the text and I pointed out the reasons in my first post to you that it is demanded by this text.

 

Ok, that is clear enough. However, the rest of your post is a direct contradiction to the above part! Why, I will explain

You have admitted that "this same Jesus" in form was physical material flesh and bone that they saw ascend into heaven. Hence, the "manner" in which departed inseparably included the form which they saw depart.

Your problem seems to be your understanding of the incarnation. The incarnation did not make his human nature a divine nature or his divine nature a human nature. First, because he would neither be God or man if that were the case. The incarnation brought together without confusion of natures both God and man. Hence, there is no reason for the incarnation to be undone as it never blended both natures together in the first place.

 

I am talking about the actual words used in your last post which I understand very well. Either they saw this "same Jesus" or they did not and either this "same Jesus" which they saw will come in the like manner they saw "HIM" leave or he will not come as he left.

Either this "same Jesus" is material body and bone or he is not and if he is as you fully admit then it is this "same Jesus" as material body and bone that they "saw" leave will in like "manner" return. Just that simple.

For some reason, you think the incarnation must be dissolved in order for God the Son to be God. Not so! He was God in human flesh and he can remain God in human flesh.

 

Brother, it is important what terms we use when we talk. For example, Jesus did not exist prior to the incarnation as Jesus refers to the man born of a virgin. God became flesh but flesh did not become God. Prior to the incarnation, God the Son existed as the eternal Word and Jehovah our Savior (Jesus in sense of meaning not in sense of incarnation).

So, in Acts 1 it is "Jesus" the man within whom God the Son dwelt that was taken up but God the Son already existed in heaven before "Jesus" the human being ascended because God is ominipresent. For example, Jesus standing before Nicodemus on earth claimed that he at the same point in time as the Son of God was in heaven (Jn. 3:11).

So, we need to distinguish Jesus as the man born of a virgin Mary form the Eternal Word, the Second Person of the Godhead who is omnipresent, immutable and eternal. Take a second and consider the words "omnipresent", "immutable" and "eternal." Hence, when becoming man, meaning indweling the human body of Jesus of nazerath in the womb of Mary the eternal Word remained "immutable" and"eternal" as well as "omnipresent" the human nature of Jesus did not and never will become omnipresent.

The mystery is that God who is immutable can co-exist in one person Jesus along with human nature without mixture but also without division of Person.

 

But, you do believe God remained God in the human flesh without ceasing to be God or God becoming flesh, between the virgin birth and the ascension, right?

 

You do beleive what was resurrected from the grave was a material body of flesh and bones, correct?