Postincarnate Christ

[asterisktom]

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

You too. Take care.

 

[George Antonios]

I think that we Christians – like everyone else – have a hard time of thinking outside the box, so to speak. Or outside the body, I should say. It is hard to see beyond our own frame of reference. However I do not think that the body that Christ showed immediately post-resurrection is the same body He had – has now – post ascension. I think the locked door encounter, John 20:24-29, was still part of His Incarnational mission, the “days of His flesh”, as Hebrews 5:7 puts it. I think there is a hint of this also in 1 Tim. 3:16 (ESV)


“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.”

These are all in the past tense, or at least, because the last of the six events is clearly in the past the preceding five ought to refer to events before it.

In the light of Hebrews 2:14 I am convinced that Christ being in the flesh was mission-specific. I do not believe that Christ is flesh and blood now. The purpose for that, according to Scripture, is long gone.

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,”

He became flesh and blood - and suffered in His flesh and shed His blood. I doubt we can fathom the depths of what He did to rescue us and to destroy the one who had the power of death.

However some people assert that Christ is flesh and blood now because of 1 Tim. 2:5

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς),”

But this does not prove that Christ is flesh and blood, but that He is the God-Man.

And this begs the question: What does it mean to be human? Is flesh and blood required for that? I do not think so. If it were, then my Christian father ceased to be human five years ago when he died. And all the saints who died in Christ also lost their humanity. But I cannot accept this. I believe, rather, that they joined “the spirits of just men made perfect”, Heb. 12:23.

Our goal is to be like Christ, Christlikeness, not that the Second Person of the Godhead should from the time of His incarnation onward stay flesh and blood. Scripture has no proof of this.

That is flirting with the spirit of antichrist:

1Jn_4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Yes, I understand that you're not denying that at one point he was flesh, but that's why I said "flirting".

 

[canadyjd]

I do have another question. The word “resurrection” meant something in the first century. The way it is used in scripture, it seems clear it refers to people that have died coming back to life; their physical bodies coming back to life.

You are saying those physical bodies are not brought back to life, stating that even though the physical body of Jesus was brought back to life, and He ascended into heaven with that physical body and the angel told the apostles He would return just like He left, He doesn’t exist in that same physical body for all eternity.

My question is this, why did God Holy Spirit inspire men to use the word “resurrection” to refer to Jesus rising from the dead and all believers rising from the dead at the return of Jesus?

The word means a physical body, dead, coming back to life. Why use the word?

peace to you

 

[asterisktom]

That is flirting with the spirit of antichrist:

1Jn_4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Yes, I understand that you're not denying that at one point he was flesh, but that's why I said "flirting".

Oh please.

Do you not understand that we must always get our truth from the Bible? If I really was flirting with the antichrist then you would have Scripture to prove your point. What you are basing your assessment of me on is man-made tradition, not Scripture.

Not one of the responders here gave an answer to the verses I gave for my position. I will ask you what I have already asked others here, What does "the days of His flesh" mean?

 

[asterisktom]

I do have another question. The word “resurrection” meant something in the first century. The way it is used in scripture, it seems clear it refers to people that have died coming back to life; their physical bodies coming back to life.

You are saying those physical bodies are not brought back to life, stating that even though the physical body of Jesus was brought back to life, and He ascended into heaven with that physical body and the angel told the apostles He would return just like He left, He doesn’t exist in that same physical body for all eternity.

My question is this, why did God Holy Spirit inspire men to use the word “resurrection” to refer to Jesus rising from the dead and all believers rising from the dead at the return of Jesus?

The word means a physical body, dead, coming back to life. Why use the word?

peace to you

Our real being - our humanity - is not in our physical bodies. That was my point when I mentioned Moses, having died physically and been dead for centuries was always alive to God - even though he had no physical body.

"35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 37Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. " Luke 20:35-38

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, at the time Jesus spoke, did not have physical bodies. Yet God says they were alive. Jesus also said that those who attain to the resurrection will be "like the angels". Do the angels have physical bodies?

But, yes, I get your point about resurrection. If Jesus resurrection was a physical one - and it was - then why is our resurrection not? That is your point, right?

My point is that not all resurrection verses have the same meaning. The word can have two meanings, either a physical resurrection in the case of Jesus or a resurrection out of Hades (Sheol) which is what happened at the Parousia, AD 70 or a few years earlier. That resurrection happened almost simultaneously (in the twinkling of an eye) with the rapture of the saints living at the time. Scripture tells us that they changed. This was necessary because flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

It should not seem unusual that "resurrection" is a term with two meanings. Many terms that Jesus used had two meanings. When He said "Let the dead bury the dead" He clearly used two definitions of "dead" in one sentence.

 

[George Antonios]

Oh please.

Do you not understand that we must always get our truth from the Bible? If I really was flirting with the antichrist then you would have Scripture to prove your point. What you are basing your assessment of me on is man-made tradition, not Scripture.

Not one of the responders here gave an answer to the verses I gave for my position. I will ask you what I have already asked others here, What does "the days of His flesh" mean?

Do you not understand that we must always get our truth from the Bible? If I really was flirting with the antichrist then you would have Scripture to prove your point.

I did:
1Jn_4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

In the light of Hebrews 2:14 I am convinced that Christ being in the flesh was mission-specific. I do not believe that Christ is flesh and blood now. The purpose for that, according to Scripture, is long gone.

In line with the "mission specific" logic, remember that the mission is not over because the incarnation was not just about being able to atone for fleshy men, but also to intercede for them in his nature as a man. V.14 picks up from the atonement on earth then and moves into intercession in heaven now, carried by the same logical extension:
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things [the flesh and blood of v.14] it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might [NOW] be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted [NOW].

The incarnation is thus twice that he might (vss.14 and 17, in red): to atone and to intercede.
Since he is still interceding for flesh and blood now he must also still be flesh and blood now.

You focused on only aspect of the mission and forgot the other.

Heresies are ever built on shaky ground and dark passages. To strip Christ of his flesh because of in the days of his flesh, in the face of many verses that just as much if not more clearly imply he is still flesh, is a classic example.

 

[atpollard]

Not so fast. 1. If Moses did not cease to be human after he died and 2. he was no longer physical then - or do you argue that he still had flesh?

I have no idea. Scripture is silent, so speculation is an empty guess in this matter. However we can state what we do know for certain from Scripture:

1. Moses had a body when he lived.
2. Moses died and was buried.
3. Moses had a body when he returned at Jesus' Transfiguration.

then 3. Having flesh is not an essential part of being human. And 4. it is thus not necessary that "the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" has flesh, or is physical.

I agree with #3 and would point to the souls of the martyrs beneath the altar in Revelation crying out to God as evidence that flesh is not "essential".
It is a giant leap from all men do not require flesh as essential to being human to the ONE MEDIATOR does not require a physical form to fulfill His many roles. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that it is not "ESSENTIAL", that is still no where near proving that Jesus actually HAS no physical form.

• Here is an example offered to illustrate the weakness in the argument: It is not ESSENTIAL that anyone believes the Gospel or that God forgives anyone, therefore NOBODY believes the Gospel, NOBODY is saved and NOBODY is going to Heaven.

Just because something is POSSIBLE, does not mean that it is TRUE.

The answer to your question is yes, though I do not see your point.

My point was that it is equally possible that the dead do have a physical form and that a physical form (even if it is not the corpse left behind) MAY BE ESSENTIAL. Moses had a PHYSICAL FORM after death. So did Lazarus and the Rich Man and Abraham of Jesus' story fame. Why would Moses have an unessential physical substance in front of Peter? Why would Jesus deliberately misrepresent the afterlife as having physical substance if He knew for certain that it did not?

 

[asterisktom]

I did:
1Jn_4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.



In line with the "mission specific" logic, remember that the mission is not over because the incarnation was not just about being able to atone for fleshy men, but also to intercede for them in his nature as a man. V.14 picks up from the atonement on earth then and moves into intercession in heaven now:
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things [the flesh and blood of v.14] it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might [NOW] be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted [NOW].

The incarnation is thus twice that he might (vss.14 and 17, in red): to atone and to intercede.
Since he is still interceding now he must also still be flesh now.

You focused on only aspect of the mission and forgot the other.

Heresies are ever built on shaky ground and dark passages. To strip Christ of his flesh because of in the days of his flesh, in the face of many verses that just as much if not more clearly imply he is still flesh, is a classic example.

The passages are dark to you because you do not understand them. Instead of coming to grips with that phrase "the days of His flesh" you just declare it shaky and dark. It is neither. What makes it dark is when you have been taught man's tradition. You say there are "many verses" that imply he is still flesh. What verses are those?

In the meantime let us do what you neglected to do, examine the phrase I bolded in red.

"the days" - a limited time. Not eternity. What else can days possibly mean?
"His flesh" - His taking on of our nature. Not non-physical - which is what He was before the Incarnation.

You totally miss the point of Hebrews and of Christ as our High Priest. His efficacy as our High Priest is not at all contingent on His being in the flesh. His intercession for us is on the basis of His once and for all death for our sins.

This is all I have time for. I have a long travel day tomorrow. I may or may not answer more tonight because this is a very important topic.

 

[George Antonios]

The passages are dark to you because you do not understand them. Instead of coming to grips with that phrase "the days of His flesh" you just declare it shaky and dark. It is neither. What makes it dark is when you have been taught man's tradition.

The thing about conceit is that it always gives its hand by judging too quickly.
I'm glad they're so clear to you. Hopefully you can educate us all to your great level of understanding.

You say there are "many verses" that imply he is still flesh. What verses are those?

I read a number in previous posts. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one making the bold statement, and the days of his flesh is hardly - to us inferior mortals - enough of a ground to strip the Son of God of his humanity, which like it or not, according to Hebrews 2:14, is indeed intertwined with being flesh and blood. By the way, if Christ is no more flesh and blood, then he is no more the Son of God because the term Son is a reference to his humanity.

In the meantime let us do what you neglected to do, examine the phrase I bolded in red.

I was simply pointing out what was wrong with that interpretation, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that there is no other interpretation, just that that one cannot be right.

You totally miss the point of Hebrews and of Christ as our High Priest. His efficacy as our High Priest is not at all contingent on His being in the flesh. His intercession for us is on the basis of His once and for all death for our sins.

I refer you back to my post #66, for which I received no answer. You just stated that I "totally" miss the point.

This is all I have time for. I have a long travel day tomorrow. I may or may not answer more tonight because this is a very important topic.

No worries. All the best.

By the way, do you believe that Jesus Christ is God Almighty?

 

[37818]

What days were meant were qualified in Hebrews 5:7-8.

 

[George Antonios]

What days were meant were qualified in Hebrews 5:7-8.

Agreed. The idea of the days of his flesh is not to imply that he isn't flesh anymore, which would go against the whole point of the passage [see post #66] but it's rather a clarification, since the author goes on to detail the weakness of Christ, which weakness he limited to his humanity by the introductory the days of his flesh. When I witness or preach, I still sometimes say that Christ did this or that, or said this or that, "in his humanity". When I say that, I certainly don't mean that Christ isn't human anymore [he is still the offspring of David as late as Revelation 22:16] but just that what I'm saying only held true as far as Christ's humanity as displayed in the gospels.
Now, does the expression in the days of its flesh, on its own, imply cessation? Certainly.
Is that the only thing it can imply? Certainly not.
Though Christ rose with the same body, Christ's pre-resurrection flesh is not the same as his post-resurrection flesh.
We ourselves will rise in the same bodies, but with changed bodies.
So if anything, the expression in the days of his flesh, implies the "end" of his pre-resurrection flesh which, unlike his post-resurrection flesh [and ours] could made subject to death, hunger, and thirst - and indeed his sufferings in the flesh is what the verses go on to discuss.
It's all very simple, and to read into that that Christ is not flesh and blood at all anymore, is indeed flirting with the spirit of antichrist.

Paul also once wrote: 2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Did he say Christ isn't flesh anymore, or that we know him now beyond the Galilean man? The latter is true. So Paul in 2Corinthians 5:16 also frames the pre-resurrection flesh of Christ in a different context to highlight its post-resurrection change, not its absolute cessation.

If Christ is no more flesh and blood, then he is no more the Son of God because the term Son is a reference to his humanity.

 

[asterisktom]

By the way, do you believe that Jesus Christ is God Almighty?

I have time for this. Yes. I do. My faith is entirely in Christ as my Lord and Savior. I am a Christian brother, as are you. As such you might want to ease up on the heresy hinting. Our mutual Lord wants us always to be respectful to each other, however repugnant my theology might seem to be to you.

 

[asterisktom]

You decided I am conceited. Why? Is it possible that I know some things you do not? I used to believe very similar to how you believe now, as far as I can tell.

 

[George Antonios]

I have time for this. Yes. I do. My faith is entirely in Christ as my Lord and Savior. I am a Christian brother, as are you. As such you might want to ease up on the heresy hinting. Our mutual Lord wants us always to be respectful to each other, however repugnant my theology might seem to be to you.

"heretic" does not always equate "lost". It's often believers that are heretics in the scriptures.

I differ from many good brothers and friends and don't lightly toss around the term "heresy" as many do, but when it comes to Christ's nature, especially with the spirit of antichrist being connected to a denial of Christ's flesh, sorry brother, but that is flirting with the spirit of antichrist however you slice it.

I'm glad you're saved and I'm sure we'll meet up in heaven.

 

[asterisktom]

If Christ is no more flesh and blood, then he is no more the Son of God because the term Son is a reference to his humanity.

This is according to your definition. What was He before the Incarnation?

 

[asterisktom]

"heretic" does not always equate "lost". It's often believers that are heretics in the scriptures.

I differ from many good brothers and friends and don't lightly toss around the term "heresy" as many do, but when it comes to Christ's nature, especially with the spirit of antichrist being connected to a denial of Christ's flesh, sorry brother, but that is flirting with the spirit of antichrist however you slice it.

I'm glad you're saved and I'm sure we'll meet up in heaven.

Okay, I will take this in the spirit it is intended. Good night. I have a long day tomorrow. If the next hotel has internet then I will continue this Lord willing.

 

[George Antonios]

This is according to your definition. What was He before the Incarnation?

No, this is John's definition:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

In eternity past he was the Word.

Then:

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And that's when the Word became the Son; hence, only at the incarnation we read:

Luk_1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

So according to Gabriel he becomes the Son of God when he is born.

 

[George Antonios]

Okay, I will take this in the spirit it is intended. Good night. I have a long day tomorrow. If the next hotel has internet then I will continue this Lord willing.

Good night

 

[canadyjd]

Our real being - our humanity - is not in our physical bodies. That was my point when I mentioned Moses, having died physically and been dead for centuries was always alive to God - even though he had no physical body.

"35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 37Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. " Luke 20:35-38

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, at the time Jesus spoke, did not have physical bodies. Yet God says they were alive. Jesus also said that those who attain to the resurrection will be "like the angels". Do the angels have physical bodies?

But, yes, I get your point about resurrection. If Jesus resurrection was a physical one - and it was - then why is our resurrection not? That is your point, right?

My point is that not all resurrection verses have the same meaning. The word can have two meanings, either a physical resurrection in the case of Jesus or a resurrection out of Hades (Sheol) which is what happened at the Parousia, AD 70 or a few years earlier. That resurrection happened almost simultaneously (in the twinkling of an eye) with the rapture of the saints living at the time. Scripture tells us that they changed. This was necessary because flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

It should not seem unusual that "resurrection" is a term with two meanings. Many terms that Jesus used had two meanings. When He said "Let the dead bury the dead" He clearly used two definitions of "dead" in one sentence.

I’ll disagree with you. Our “real being” , our humanity, is made up of both physical and spiritual. When Jesus took on humanity, He added it all and He added humanity to His deity forever.

The verses you cited show that when the physical body dies, the spirit lives on. That is why Abraham and Moses and the rest are still alive.

There is no way, imo, to deny the meaning of “resurrection” in the context that it is used in reference to Jesus and ourselves. You acknowledge Jesus was physically resurrected, but deny that physical body remained.

In essence, the argument is whether Jesus, and by extension those that are resurrected in Christ, will have physical bodies? I agree they are transformed bodies but maintain they are physical.

Yes, at least some angels have physical bodies.

peace to you

 

[Yeshua1]

Please think this over. Did the saints in Christ in ages past lose their humanity when they died? Because they surely were not physical after they died.

The irreducible aspect of humanity is not physical. Flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Question: Did Moses or David cease to be human when they died? Yes or no.

None save Jesus have been resurrected yet!