Featured Postincarnate Christ

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".

 

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

 

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, 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.

 

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.

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.

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?

 

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.

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.

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.

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

No worries. All the best.

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

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

Good night

 

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

 

None save Jesus have been resurrected yet!