Ephapax, "Once for all". A crucial word for Christology

[asterisktom]

Ἐφάπαξ – “Once For All”: A Crucial Word for Christology

Back in the day, my Greek professor at Bob Jones University introduced me to the writing of A.T. Robertson. Afterward I enthusiastically studied all his books that I could get my hands on. I learne…

asterisktom.wordpress.com

 

[kyredneck]

“Once for all” - excellent

 

[37818]

Once [ for all ]

Romans 6:10, For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

1 Corinthians 15:6, . . . After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Hebrews 7:27, . . . Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:12, . . . Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 10:10, By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[asterisktom]

“Once for all” - excellent

This shouldn't even have to be written, but there are a lot of teachers, fellow preterists, as I mentioned, who are espousing the craziest things that strike at the very heart of the Gospel message..

 

[JesusFan]

This shouldn't even have to be written, but there are a lot of teachers, fellow preterists, as I mentioned, who are espousing the craziest things that strike at the very heart of the Gospel message..

well, since full blown pretierism always be seen as being heretical by the Historical church, any wonder has some "rotten fruit?"

 

[asterisktom]

well, since full blown pretierism always be seen as being heretical by the Historical church, any wonder has some "rotten fruit?"

Preterism has often been looked down upon by those who value the traditions of men over the Word of God. It is by studying Scripture and connecting the passages that has led me to Full Preterism. Nothing "full blown" about it. It is a breath of fresh air and an escape from the dispensational strait-jacket I was under for decades.

 

[JesusFan]

Preterism has often been looked down upon by those who value the traditions of men over the Word of God. It is by studying Scripture and connecting the passages that has led me to Full Preterism. Nothing "full blown" about it. It is a breath of fresh air and an escape from the dispensational strait-jacket I was under for decades.

Still is considered and seen as being heresy by Historical church, from both the CT and Dispy wings

 

[asterisktom]

Still is considered and seen as being heresy by Historical church, from both the CT and Dispy wings

...but not from the Word of God. And that is what counts. The "historical church" vilified Luther for his (what they considered) novel doctrine of justification by faith. Eck and several other doctors of the RC church told him that his "new truth" had no prior record in their creeds and councils. They were right. But he was "righter" because he stood on the Word of God.

 

[JesusFan]

...but not from the Word of God. And that is what counts. The "historical church" vilified Luther for his (what they considered) novel doctrine of justification by faith. Eck and several other doctors of the RC church told him that his "new truth" had no prior record in their creeds and councils. They were right. But he was "righter" because he stood on the Word of God.

Full Blown heresy as nothing to stand upon though, and definitely not the bible

 

[asterisktom]

Full Blown heresy as nothing to stand upon though, and definitely not the bible

Care to back that up with Scripture?

 

[JesusFan]

Has the Second Coming event already happened, and if so, when did we get our promised glorified physical bodies?

 

[asterisktom]

It is a narcissistic hermeneutic that, whenever it encounters the word "you" in the Bible, assumes that they themselves are meant, not the ones whose names are on the epistle. The Apostles and, earlier, Jesus gave plenty of promises that Christ would come back within that generation.

 

[JesusFan]

It is a narcissistic hermeneutic that, whenever it encounters the word "you" in the Bible, assumes that they themselves are meant, not the ones whose names are on the epistle. The Apostles and, earlier, Jesus gave plenty of promises that Christ would come back within that generation.

You seem to think it was a spiritual return, as JW see it, but Bible clearly teaches second coming event will mean physical resurrection of all dead in Christ, and ushering in the eternal kingdom right then and there

 

[asterisktom]

You seem to think it was a spiritual return, as JW see it, but Bible clearly teaches second coming event will mean physical resurrection of all dead in Christ, and ushering in the eternal kingdom right then and there

I believe in an actual return of Christ. No, not in physical form, but in a spiritual form, the "days of His flesh" having passed. We also will have spiritual bodies, just like the saints who were raptured. But they were first changed, seeing that "flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

The JWs don't believe in the Trinity or deity of Christ, but I do. They don't believe in salvation by faith in the shed blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, but I do. My hope is built on nothing less.

But go ahead and take whatever potshots you feel you need to.

 

[JesusFan]

I believe in an actual return of Christ. No, not in physical form, but in a spiritual form, the "days of His flesh" having passed. We also will have spiritual bodies, just like the saints who were raptured. But they were first changed, seeing that "flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

The JWs don't believe in the Trinity or deity of Christ, but I do. They don't believe in salvation by faith in the shed blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, but I do. My hope is built on nothing less.

But go ahead and take whatever potshots you feel you need to.

You deny the physical bodilily resurrection and a literal future second coming, both views would be heretical

 

[JesusFan]

I believe in an actual return of Christ. No, not in physical form, but in a spiritual form, the "days of His flesh" having passed. We also will have spiritual bodies, just like the saints who were raptured. But they were first changed, seeing that "flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

The JWs don't believe in the Trinity or deity of Christ, but I do. They don't believe in salvation by faith in the shed blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, but I do. My hope is built on nothing less.

But go ahead and take whatever potshots you feel you need to.

Did Jesus rise up in his physical body in a glorified state? Did he not state that he was not a ghost but flesh and blood? And was Paul wrong about the second coming being when in Christ would be physically resurrection and all still alive would have glorified bodies?

 

[asterisktom]

You deny the physical bodilily resurrection and a literal future second coming, both views would be heretical

Where do you get that? I certainly don't deny the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ. Neither do I deny the literal coming. But, yes, it was already in the past. Now - tell me from Scripture how I am heretical.

 

[JesusFan]

Where do you get that? I certainly don't deny the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ. Neither do I deny the literal coming. But, yes, it was already in the past. Now - tell me from Scripture how I am heretical.

Denial of the physical bodily resurrection heretical, as is saying tyhat second coming already happened

 

[asterisktom]

Did Jesus rise up in his physical body in a glorified state? Did he not state that he was not a ghost but flesh and blood? And was Paul wrong about the second coming being when in Christ would be physically resurrection and all still alive would have glorified bodies?

Yes, He did. Yes, He stated that. And what you said about Paul (if I understand you question) is true, except for the "physical resurrection" part. Resurrection, yes. Physical, no. "Flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Just to be clear, Christ had to suffer, die, and rise again physically. He did this to secure our salvation. Those were "the days of His flesh". But there came a time when He no longer had to be in the flesh.

So far I am the only one quoting Scripture. All I am getting from you are accusations that are not backed with Scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, He did. Yes, He stated that. And what you said about Paul (if I understand you question) is true, except for the "physical resurrection" part. Resurrection, yes. Physical, no. "Flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Just to be clear, Christ had to suffer, die, and rise again physically. He did this to secure our salvation. Those were "the days of His flesh". But there came a time when He no longer had to be in the flesh.

So far I am the only one quoting Scripture. All I am getting from you are accusations that are not backed with Scripture.

You deny that its the same Jesus, as He arose bodily physically resurrection, and forever more shall be the God Man, Yahweh in glorified human flesh form!