Postincarnate Christ

[George Antonios]

I would have thought the man after God's own heart would have been with them yet he wasn't. Acts 2:29

Correct, he wasn't. It said many bodies not "all".

 

[MB]

I am not asking for Scripture. I am just asking for logic. If it is shown that saints - or anyone - dies they have no body, just, spirit then one of two things must be true:
1. They cease to be human or
2. They are still human - and thus physicality is not the essential part of humanity. And Christ being the mediator, "the Man Christ Jesus" does not require Him to be in physical form.


Of course. My only purpose for the above was to show that the verse in Timothy, or verses like it, do not prove that Christ is physical now.

The proof of Christ being non-physical now is in a number of verses consider together. We can arrive at this conclusion in the same way we arrive at the proof for the Trinity where, likewise, no one single verse is enough.

How is this deliberate misrepresentation? There is no hint of physicality here. You are reading that into the passage.

Not everything is logical. If Christ isn't physical after resurrection then He didn't rise from the dead. This is the only logical answer
MB

 

[asterisktom]

Not everything is logical. If Christ isn't physical after resurrection then He didn't rise from the dead. This is the only logical answer
MB

I never said Christ did not rise physically from the dead. That is not the issue.

 

[asterisktom]

“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why are you standing here staring into heaven? Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday he will return from heaven in the same way you saw him go!” (Acts)

2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. (1 John)

2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. (1 John)

7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we jhave worked for, but may win a full reward. 9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John)
​

The last two verses have nothing to do with me or the OP. I affirm that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. I am sure I mentioned this to you before, Agedman, and you probably will repeat the same accusation again later.

The second verse says that we will be like Him. That begs the question what He is like. Begging the question is not the same as answering the question.

The verse from Acts is not to the point either. It says He will come "in like manner". This is adverbial, not adjectival. It describes how He was to return, not what He will be. "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 angrily". 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.

 

[agedman]

The last two verses have nothing to do with me or the OP. I affirm that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. I am sure I mentioned this to you before, Agedman, and you probably will repeat the same accusation again later.

The second verse says that we will be like Him. That begs the question what He is like. Begging the question is not the same as answering the question.

The verse from Acts is not to the point either. It says He will come "in like manner". This is adverbial, not adjectival. It describes how He was to return, not what He will be. "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 angrily". 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.

Strange you felt the need to comment on my post, much less that I engaged in eisegises.

I made not a single comment concerning those verses.

From where then did I depart from the truth into my own opinion?

 

[asterisktom]

Strange you felt the need to comment on my post, much less that I engaged in eisegises.

I made not a single comment concerning those verses.

From where then did I depart from the truth into my own opinion?

Really? The fact that you even quoted them as a response to this thread constituted your comment.

 

[agedman]

The fact that you even quoted them as a response to this thread.

Does that mean the Scriptures were not appropriate to the topic, for it does seem you were the one giving you opinion concerning them.

 

[asterisktom]

Does that mean the Scriptures were not appropriate to the topic, for it does seem you were the one giving you opinion concerning them.

The only verse that was somewhat appropriate to the topic was the Acts passage, which is why I spent more time on that.

 

[MB]

Your point then seems to be that Christ is no longer flesh or the same flesh He was while hear on Earth. How do you explain that Thomas examined Him and found Him to be our Lord. Does the Spirit also maintain scar tissue? Can you feel a Spirit and examine it.
MB

 

[atpollard]

Your point then seems to be that Christ is no longer flesh or the same flesh He was while hear on Earth. How do you explain that Thomas examined Him and found Him to be our Lord. Does the Spirit also maintain scar tissue? Can you feel a Spirit and examine it.
MB

His claim is Jesus underwent ANOTHER transformation at the ascension.
So ...

• Flesh and blood Jesus from Birth to crucifixion
• Flesh and no blood Jesus from resurrection to ascension.
• Spirit only Jesus after his Ascension and today.

 

[MB]

His claim is Jesus underwent ANOTHER transformation at the ascension.
So ...

• Flesh and blood Jesus from Birth to crucifixion
• Flesh and no blood Jesus from resurrection to ascension.
• Spirit only Jesus after his Ascension and today.

I believe the idea nothing but imagination.. Why would His body be raised in the first place? Why would ours? My answer is purification. We will be made perfect. Christ was already perfect and we are told we will be as He is then He must have flesh Just like us so we can be the same.
MB

 

[atpollard]

I believe the idea nothing but imagination.. Why would His body be raised in the first place? Why would ours? My answer is purification. We will be made perfect. Christ was already perfect and we are told we will be as He is then He must have flesh Just like us so we can be the same.
MB

I agree that his opinion runs contrary to my own.
He does raise an interesting question about whether you need a body to be a Human being ... is a dead person still a human being after death and before his body is raised on the last day? I think that they are. Remember the martyrs under the altar crying out "How long?" in Revelation. It doesn't sound like they had bodies, but they were still human beings (they do get bodies and robes later in the story).

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that his opinion runs contrary to my own.
He does raise an interesting question about whether you need a body to be a Human being ... is a dead person still a human being after death and before his body is raised on the last day? I think that they are. Remember the martyrs under the altar crying out "How long?" in Revelation. It doesn't sound like they had bodies, but they were still human beings (they do get bodies and robes later in the story).

To God, we would be still incomplete until the resurrection and glorified bodies, as whole and united once again!

 

[percho]

I agree that his opinion runs contrary to my own.
He does raise an interesting question about whether you need a body to be a Human being ... is a dead person still a human being after death and before his body is raised on the last day? I think that they are. Remember the martyrs under the altar crying out "How long?" in Revelation. It doesn't sound like they had bodies, but they were still human beings (they do get bodies and robes later in the story).

From post 92 modified.

Do Named souls, kinetic being's, Larry, Curly and Mo or Moses and David if you will, require a body of flesh, temporary and corruptible in this present world? Will they require a body of flesh. permanent and incorruptible in the world to come?

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 2 Cor 5:1-3

 

[asterisktom]

Your point then seems to be that Christ is no longer flesh or the same flesh He was while hear on Earth. How do you explain that Thomas examined Him and found Him to be our Lord. Does the Spirit also maintain scar tissue? Can you feel a Spirit and examine it.
MB

That is not my point. Do you even read my posts for understanding, or just ammunition?

 

[asterisktom]

His claim is Jesus underwent ANOTHER transformation at the ascension.
So ...

• Flesh and blood Jesus from Birth to crucifixion
• Flesh and no blood Jesus from resurrection to ascension.
• Spirit only Jesus after his Ascension and today.

Thank you. That is basically what I believe, although I am not sure I would phrase the second phase the same way. Flesh, I think, presupposes blood also. His eating food is a demonstration of His full representation of our humanity.

 

[atpollard]

Thank you. That is basically what I believe, although I am not sure I would phrase the second phase the same way. Flesh, I think, presupposes blood also. His eating food is a demonstration of His full representation of our humanity.

Scripture used the phrase “flesh and bone” of the resurrected body and he would have quickly bled to death through his open wounds (he had a spear hole in his side large enough to place your hand into).

 

[asterisktom]

Scripture used the phrase “flesh and bone” of the resurrected body and he would have quickly bled to death through his open wounds (he had a spear hole in his side large enough to place your hand into).

That sounds reasonable.

 

[asterisktom]

so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.

...

Flesh and blood did not inherit the kingdom of God but flesh (spiritual) and bones did.

On the basis of 1 Cor. 15 I just cannot come to your conclusion. Whether "flesh and bones" or "flesh and blood" they are both part of what we are to be changed from. I do not want to write it all again but somewhere in this thread I try to show from 1 Cor 15 how that essence comes out of origin. Your verse that you quoted above is part of the proof. We first had the essence of Adam. We will have the essence of Christ - the pre-incarnate Christ. That is, we will have spiritual bodies.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

No, the announcement of Gabriel proves no such connection. You have four "shalls" here, but that does not mean that they all happen at the same time are connected by causation. You have other verses about the Christ the Son in both the Old and New Testament indicating other interpretations.

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" - Romans 1:3-4

When is He the Son here. Not at birth.

But this is just one example. You can also look at Psalm 1 and 2, Proverbs 30:4, and other passages.

But all of this is getting far afield from the main point I am trying to make. One of the best proofs of my point is in 1 Cor. 15, as I wrote in the other post.