The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics

[asterisktom]

Nor can one pretend that 'This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same manner as you saw Him go into heaven' really means, 'He will return in an entirely different manner than you saw Him go into heaven.'

Oh please. Obviously He was to come back in the same manner. I never denied that. You are confusing an adverbial phrase with adjectival. "Same manner" says nothing about the essence of Christ.

Obviously He is the same Jesus at both His departure and return. And if you argue that "same Jesus" necessarily means that He still has a physical body then, by the same token, that would mean He was physical before the Incarnation.

Unless you think that it was a different Jesus before the Incarnation.

"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”" - John 8:58

 

[Jerome]

I am definitely against this dictum. It is methodology from man, in this case, a man named David L. Cooper, a fellow BJU graduate.

the Golden Rule of Interpretation. It harkens back all the way, I think, to the 1960's.

Oh please.

1890, John Wilkinson books.google.com/books?id=gCjPyKwS1f0C&pg=PR7

"let the Word of God mean what He says; that is, if the plain and obvious sense make good sense seek no other sense"

 

[asterisktom]

Oh please.

1890, John Wilkinson books.google.com/books?id=gCjPyKwS1f0C&pg=PR7

"let the Word of God mean what He says; that is, if the plain and obvious sense make good sense seek no other sense"

You are being quite deceitful with your quote snippets above. The first quote was from 2011, not at all from this thread. You give the impression that it is.

The second quote is from this thread. And I do stand by it. Anyone who just Googles that exact phrase will come up with the exact wording and, in the case of most, the attribution of Cooper. The phrase as I quoted it in the OP - if you even read it - is from Cooper. I am sure the general sentiment is not original with him. Not even my point.

But what is your point, Jerome? What are you trying to prove? All you are doing is displaying your own pettiness or your poor reading skills.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh please. Obviously He was to come back in the same manner. I never denied that. You are confusing an adverbial phrase with adjectival. "Same manner" says nothing about the essence of Christ.

Obviously He is the same Jesus at both His departure and return. And if you argue that "same Jesus" necessarily means that He still has a physical body then, by the same token, that would mean He was physical before the Incarnation.

Unless you think that it was a different Jesus before the Incarnation.

"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”" - John 8:58

Oh please. Just read, first my post, which said nothing about the 'essence' of Christ, and then Acts of the Apostles 1:11.
He left in a body which was 'flesh and bones' (Luke 24:39). He will return in the same manner. An invisible Jesus might have the same 'essence' but He would be a very different Jesus to the one who left. Why? Because no one could see Him.
He left visibly. 'As you saw Him go into heaven.' People saw that very Jesus returning into heaven; people will see Him return. Where are all the people who saw Him return in AD 70?
Clouds came over to obscure Him as He rose; clouds will part to reveal Him when He returns.

 

[George Antonios]

Oh please. Obviously He was to come back in the same manner. I never denied that. You are confusing an adverbial phrase with adjectival. "Same manner" says nothing about the essence of Christ.

Obviously He is the same Jesus at both His departure and return. And if you argue that "same Jesus" necessarily means that He still has a physical body then, by the same token, that would mean He was physical before the Incarnation.

Unless you think that it was a different Jesus before the Incarnation.

"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”" - John 8:58

More slippery than mercury.

 

[George Antonios]

Jeff, I responded to your points in your post.

You ignored my scriptural proofs and logical points and lamely sent me elsewhere. Not playing that game.

I will just assume that you believe that, since you put so much weight on this same Jesus meaning flesh and bones forever, you believe this same Jesus had flesh and bones before the Incarnation. Or that He was a different Jesus. If you do not concede my point those are the only two options left.

Did Jesus ascend to heaven in a body of flesh and bones? Yes or no?

 

[asterisktom]

Oh please. Just read, first my post, which said nothing about the 'essence' of Christ, and then Acts of the Apostles 1:11.
He left in a body which was 'flesh and bones' (Luke 24:39). He will return in the same manner. An invisible Jesus might have the same 'essence' but He would be a very different Jesus to the one who left. Why? Because no one could see Him.
He left visibly. 'As you saw Him go into heaven.' People saw that very Jesus returning into heaven; people will see Him return. Where are all the people who saw Him return in AD 70?
Clouds came over to obscure Him as He rose; clouds will part to reveal Him when He returns.

I can see I misunderstood you. Or at least I think I did. But forget about the invisible issue. I am not arguing that He returned invisibly. But I was arguing that He was, and is, no longer in a physical body.

 

[AVL1984]

Aren't we supposed to go by context and content? Aren't we supposed to see who was speaking and to whom they were speaking at that time, and for what reason? I don't believe we can arrive at a correct interpretation just by reading a verse by itself, at least not in all instances. We need to read the whole chapter, and if necessary, the whole book. It's also not a sin to look at commentaries and other translations of the Bible or a Bible dictionary for assistance. Many of today's church members ARE NOT Bible scholars, they have not been to Bible college or seminary and aren't equipped to just sit down and interpret Scriptures by themselves. They can if they compare Scripture with Scripture in many instances. But, even then I believe it's always wise to consider other sources available.

 

[asterisktom]

More slippery than mercury.

Instead of being snide how about answering the questions?
Do you think "same Jesus" necessarily demands "same in essence" (physical vs. non-physical)?
If yes, then how could Jesus be the same before the Incarnation and yet be non-physical?

Answer those and I will get to your Shibboleth.

 

[George Antonios]

Instead of being snide how about answering the questions?
Do you think "same Jesus" necessarily demands "same in essence" (physical vs. non-physical)?
If yes, then how could Jesus be the same before the Incarnation and yet be non-physical?

Answer those and I will get to your Shibboleth.

I think shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go demands it.
They saw a body of flesh and bones get received up.

 

[asterisktom]

I think shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go demands it.
They saw a body of flesh and bones get received up.

I guess your answering a question I did not ask is supposed to make me not notice you did not answer my two questions. I assume you have no answer for those.

And supposedly I am the slippery one.

 

[robycop3]

I believe that the quote from Cooper largely overlooks the fact that much of Scripture must be taken metaphorically or spiritually, not literally. Remember, this was a constant problem with Jesus' disciples. They were taking literally what Christ was teaching metaphorically.

Also, the disciples were not given a heads up ahead of time that His words were not literal (for instance, when He warned them to "be aware of the leaven of the Pharisees"). Likewise we must assume that Scripture does not always come with a heads up for us, telling us that passage X is meant metaphorically, not literally. I write all this because I have heard - from some of my professors even - that we should not take passages metaphorically if there is no indication (no heads up).

The metaphoric Scriptures ALWAYS have a LITERAL meaning, and are obviously metaphoric. For instance, look at Rev. 17. It's obvious there are no critters with 7 heads & 10 horns, but at the end of the vision, the angel who showed it explains its meanings,

And certain metaphors always mean the same thing. For instance, a dragon is always Satan. A harlot(when used metaphorically) is always a or false church, while fornication, used likewise, is always idol, or false, worship.

Preterists have a habit of reducing literal "inconvenient" Scriptures to "metaphoric/symbolic" status to attempt to give some veracity to their doctrine, as 'taking' them literally proves their doctrine false.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's also not a sin to look at commentaries and other translations of the Bible or a Bible dictionary for assistance.

Proverbs 24:6. 'In a multitude of counsellors there is safety.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But I was arguing that He was, and is, no longer in a physical body.

Luke 24:39 tells us specifically that He was in a physical body.
And trying to argue that a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44) means no body at all doesn't work either. The clue is in the word: 'body' (Gk. soma). When we are born of the Spirit (John 3:6), it does not mean that we no longer have bodies.

 

[AVL1984]

Luke 24:39 tells us specifically that He was in a physical body.
And trying to argue that a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44) means no body at all doesn't work either. The clue is in the word: 'body' (Gk. soma). When we are born of the Spirit (John 3:6), it does not mean that we no longer have bodies.

This is obvious, as you state. We are born once in the flesh, and then we, when born again, are born of the Spirit. I believe Jesus had to explain that one to Zaccheus, didn't he? I find it strange that a person like Zaccheus, who should have been well versed in Scriptures, should have known the difference between the literal and Spiritual births. Could this mean that the "veil" was already over the eyes of the Hebrew children concerning the Gospel? I don't know if this would be the case or not, considering the number of people who were committing to following Christ and his teachings. But, It does raise some interesting possibilities.

 

[asterisktom]

Luke 24:39 tells us specifically that He was in a physical body.
And trying to argue that a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44) means no body at all doesn't work either. The clue is in the word: 'body' (Gk. soma). When we are born of the Spirit (John 3:6), it does not mean that we no longer have bodies.

Nobody is disputing that He had a physical body in Luke 24:39. As I have told you before, Jeff, Christ was resurrected in a physical body. We have gone over this several times now.

And neither did I say that Christ has no body. Philippians says "we will be like unto His glorious body". Also 1 John 3.

One of the marks of intelligence (which I know you have) and courtesy is the ability to state and understand the opponent's view. I have interacted with you for a few years now yet I keep having to repeat myself on basic tenets.

You have no clue what I believe apparently.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You have no clue what I believe apparently.

I only know what you tell me.

But I was arguing that He was, and is, no longer in a physical body.

And I am arguing that He was (Luke 24:39) and will be (Acts of the Apostles 1:11) in a physical body.

 

[asterisktom]

I only know what you tell me.

No. I have had to keep answering the same points from you time and again. I guess you forget.

And I am arguing that He was (Luke 24:39) and will be (Acts of the Apostles 1:11) in a physical body.[/QUOTE]

Your arguing that His body remains physical is not from Scripture. It is from tradition. The "like manner" of Acts 1:11 relates to His going and returning in a cloud. That adverbial phrase says nothing about what He would be like at the return. At the rapture the living saints were changed to be like Him. That is why Paul said to the Thessalonians that they would be changed. And why he told the Corinthians that flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. There is no reason for Him to remain in physical form, beyond the "days of His flesh"..

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. I have had to keep answering the same points from you time and again. I guess you forget.

No. I don't forget. You keep prevaricating, and I keep pressing the facts.

And I am arguing that He was (Luke 24:39) and will be (Acts of the Apostles 1:11) in a physical body.

Your arguing that His body remains physical is not from Scripture. It is from tradition. The "like manner" of Acts 1:11 relates to His going and returning in a cloud. That adverbial phrase says nothing about what He would be like at the return.

'In like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.' In what possible sense can His return be 'in like manner' if no one can see Him? In fact, of course, 'every eye shall see Him' (Revelation 1:7).

At the rapture the living saints were changed to be like Him.

You believe in a rapture that is already past? Fascinating! Is there any evidence that the saints in, say, Philippi, shed their physical bodies? I think we should be told.

That is why Paul said to the Thessalonians that they would be changed.

Those alive at Christ's return will be changed 'in the twinkling of an eye' from their mortal bodies into a body like Christ's glorified body.

And why he told the Corinthians that flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

'Flesh and blood' is an expression meaning sinful humanity (Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 6:12). That is presumably why our Lord described His resurrection body as 'flesh and bones.'

There is no reason for Him to remain in physical form, beyond the "days of His flesh"..

This is your human reasoning. You have agreed that our Lord went up to heaven in a physical body. Where in the Scriptures does it say that He shed it at any point?

Acts of the Apostles 1:11 refutes Hyper-preterism, and so long as you continue to promote it on this board, I shall continue to present the verse.

 

[asterisktom]

No. I don't forget. You keep prevaricating, and I keep pressing the facts.

Usually when people insult it is because they do not have legitimate responses. Prevaricate? How?

'In like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.' In what possible sense can His return be 'in like manner' if no one can see Him? In fact, of course, 'every eye shall see Him' (Revelation 1:7).

Do you even read what I write? I did not say His return was invisible. I put it in red so I do not have to repeat it again.

You believe in a rapture that is already past? Fascinating! Is there any evidence that the saints in, say, Philippi, shed their physical bodies? I think we should be told.

Yes, I believe the words of Christ when He spoke of all these things happening in "this generation". I guess you have some slippery definition for what our Lord meant by "this generation" and "soon".

'Flesh and blood' is an expression meaning sinful humanity (Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 6:12). That is presumably why our Lord described His resurrection body as 'flesh and bones.'

Humanity is more than flesh and bones. At any rate I am not speaking of the resurrection of Christ. Question: When a Christian dies, losing their flesh and bones, do they cease to be human?

You know the NT phrase "the Man Christ Jesus". Corinthians tells us that "flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." How can flesh and bones enter Heaven? Or are you going to argue that there is a profound difference between the two underlined phrases?

This is your human reasoning. You have agreed that our Lord went up to heaven in a physical body. Where in the Scriptures does it say that He shed it at any point?

Human reasoning? You are the one redefining words and phrases to fit your theology. And Nowhere does it say that God is obligated to tell us everything we think need to know.

Acts of the Apostles 1:11 refutes Hyper-preterism, and so long as you continue to promote it on this board, I shall continue to present the verse.

Yes you will focus on that verse. And you will not see how other verses fit in with that verse.