Christ's Return: Spiritual or Physical?

[Baptist Believer]

Well, if challenging your beliefs comes across as insulting then I would suggest you are in the wrong place.

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.

Those crucial words you did not even address.

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.

Crying "context" is often a way to redirect from a passage that you don't know how to handle.

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.

But don't be so thin-skinned about it.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Those who know me here know that I do care for real conversations - even from quite opposite positions.

Oh well. Take care. Hope that you don't become a preterist. Then you will really get the insults.

I'm done here.

 

[The Biblicist]

Acts 1:9 - 11 is a favorite passage for those who believe Christ returns in a physical body. 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.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Nobody is denying how He was post resurrection. Not my point.

OK. I'm tired of going through this again. You see what you want to see.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nobody is denying how He was post resurrection. Not my point.

OK. I'm tired of going through this again. You see what you want to see.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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 am I side stepping? I agree on the bodily resurrection and on the appearances and His ascension.

It is you who are not focused enough on what "manner" implies. It has nothing to do with physicality.

 

[The Biblicist]

How am I side stepping? I agree on the bodily resurrection and on the appearances and His ascension.

It is you who are not focused enough on what "manner" implies. It has nothing to do with physicality.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Good grief. You are doing it again.

I wanted to zero in on "manner" - the phrase "in like manner" - and you are writing about the text (which is more than the phrase).

"Manner" says nothing about form. I can say "A man came up to me angrily" or "A dog came up to me angrily". Manner = "came up". It tells me nothing about the form.

They saw Jesus depart in a cloud, out of their sight.
He will return the same way - "with the clouds".

Anything more is eisegesis.

 

[The Biblicist]

Good grief. You are doing it again.

I wanted to zero in on "manner" - the phrase "in like manner" - and you are writing about the text (which is more than the phrase).

"Manner" says nothing about form. I can say "A man came up to me angrily" or "A dog came up to me angrily". Manner = "came up". It tells me nothing about the form.

They saw Jesus depart in a cloud, out of their sight.
He will return the same way - "with the clouds".

Anything more is eisegesis.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

OK. You are right to point that out. I worded that wrong. He obviously was physical when He presented Himself to the disciple. At some point post ascension He returned to His pre-incarnation form. Is that clear enough?

But that does not mean that He was to return in a physical form. If you insist, like some do, that "this same Jesus" implies that then you would also have to say that Jesus pre-incarnation would then have to be a different Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

OK. You are right to point that out. I worded that wrong. He obviously was physical when He presented Himself to the disciple.

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

But that does not mean that He was to return in a physical form. If you insist, like some do, that "this same Jesus" implies that then you would also have to say that Jesus pre-incarnation would then have to be a different Jesus.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

No, your "hence" does not follow. That is where you are pouring your preferred theology into a contrary text. You focus on His ascent but do not include being his out of their sight by a cloud. "In the same manner" has to do with that. And did you even read what I wrote about that adverbial phrase?

I agree with what you write on the Incarnation except the last sentence. The Incarnation was not "undone", but the Messiah's mission was "finished". There is no need for Him to still be in a physical form.

"For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." Heb. 10:14

 

[The Biblicist]

No, your "hence" does not follow. That is where you are pouring your preferred theology into a contrary text. Did you even read what I wrote about that adverbial phrase?

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

So you believe it was a different Jesus before the Incarnation, since He had no physical body then?

IOW if "same Jesus" means that the Jesus who returns has to be physical then the Jesus pre-Incarnation, by the same token has to be physical too. Or did His being pure spirit pre-incarnation make Him a different Jesus.

Your overloading "this same Jesus" with imagined proof of physicality works both ways, pre and post incarnation.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

"Dissolved" and "undone" are not at all words I would use for the Incarnation. You seem to have no idea what I think. I suggest you put off the mind-reading hat.

I get my views on all of this from the Bible. Nothing in It says that He remains God in human flesh now. God, yes, flesh, no.

 

[The Biblicist]

So you believe it was a different Jesus before the Incarnation, since He had no physical body then?

IOW if "same Jesus" means that the Jesus who returns has to be physical then the Jesus pre-Incarnation, by the same token has to be physical too. Or did His being pure spirit pre-incarnation make Him a different Jesus.

Your overloading "this same Jesus" with imagined proof of physicality works both ways, pre and post incarnation.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

I get my views on all of this from the Bible. Nothing in It says that He remains God in human flesh now. God, yes, flesh, no.

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?

 

[The Biblicist]

"Dissolved" and "undone" are not at all words I would use for the Incarnation. You seem to have no idea what I think. I suggest you put off the mind-reading hat.

I get my views on all of this from the Bible. Nothing in It says that He remains God in human flesh now. God, yes, flesh, no.

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

 

[asterisktom]

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?

Of course!

 

[asterisktom]

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

Most definitely. Otherwise our faith is in vain.