Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The passage truly is definitive when it comes to proving that Jesus appeared with a body that physical and spiritual. However no one here is even denying that. Your definitive passage says nothing about our bodies. For that we must go elsewhere, especially 1 Cor 15.
Once again, Jesus is a unique case. If you press the "We will be like Him" to such extremes, then, we need to insist that the mutilated saints will also have marks of their mutilation, beheading, etc., just as Jesus had the nail scars in His body. But if you concede that we will not be exactly like Jesus then we can more clearly discuss how we will be like Him and how not. That is what I tried to do before.
"Considered to be"? How about "shown to be" by the inspired verses above? This is not a matter of reckoning but of reality. We will have spiritual bodies.
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
From the above two passages, I reckon this to say that our bodies will bear the same image of the heavenly - as our Lord from heaven. Christ is also described as "the firstfruits of them that slept." In order for Him to be the "First" of anything - don't the rest have to be the same?1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Thanks for asking RAdam. That would be the one in 1 Thessalonians 4!
Amen RAdam........I got the same lame attitude from Logos1 myself on a post.You made this statement: "Not to worry RAdam I not the kind of guy to rub it in when we both meet on the other side." You really need to repent from this kind of an attitude..
Peter was looking for the new heaven and new earth because he was writing before 70 AD. Had he been writing afterward he would have stated he was living in the new heavens and new earth.
As for the whining, I find it very typical of many futurist they can dish it out all day, but can't deal with disagreement or criticism of their position. It's a good thing they are futurist since they don't posses the fortitude to be preterists. I get called devil, satan, antichrist and much worse than you have come close to and I don't lose sleep over it or spend a second out side the forums worrying about it. Good grief what cry babies!
All I can say gentlemen is either put your big boy pants, grow a little spine, or just stay out the forums so you won't have to deal with anybody disagreeing with you. Kind of reminds me of the Pharisees lashing out at Jesus because they felt threatened by him.
I'll sleep good tonight no matter how many times I get called the devil because I'm firm in my convictions.
Being snotty.....it that a Christ-like attitude? Nope! We might disagree with you but being snotty means you ran outta amo.:tonofbricks:All I can say gentlemen is either put your big boy pants, grow a little spine, or just stay out the forums so you won't have to deal with anybody disagreeing with you. .
Peter was looking for the new heaven and new earth because he was writing before 70 AD. Had he been writing afterward he would have stated he was living in the new heavens and new earth.
As for the whining, I find it very typical of many futurist they can dish it out all day, but can't deal with disagreement or criticism of their position. It's a good thing they are futurist since they don't posses the fortitude to be preterists. I get called devil, satan, antichrist and much worse than you have come close to and I don't lose sleep over it or spend a second out side the forums worrying about it. Good grief what cry babies!
All I can say gentlemen is either put your big boy pants, grow a little spine, or just stay out the forums so you won't have to deal with anybody disagreeing with you. Kind of reminds me of the Pharisees lashing out at Jesus because they felt threatened by him.
I'll sleep good tonight no matter how many times I get called the devil because I'm firm in my convictions.
There’s no in-between covenant mentioned in the bible so think about it—if the Old Covenant ended by definition the New Covenant has to have arrived.
By the way, you say there is no in-between covenant. I agree. What event ended the old covenant and ushered in the new covenant? You say 70 AD.
Hebrews 10:9 - "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."
The context here is not the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the cross of Christ. This chapter emphatically states, and that before 70 AD, that Christ had forever fulfilled, and thus taken away, the old covenant, and had established the new.
If the New Covenant hadn't been entirely established at the death of Christ, and wouldn't be so until about 40 years later, then all the epistles writen in the intervening time stating that Christ had redeemed us from under the law, that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith, that the heir so long as he is a child is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father (the time appointed in our case being when Christ came and redeemed us), are all wrong. If the Old Covenant isn't gone, fulfilled, the temporary carnal shadow being replaced by the eternal spiritual reality, then how can Paul say we aren't under the law but under grace to Christ? How, then, could Christians have been free from the requirements of the law? Paul said those things stood in meats and drinks and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation, and then clearly says the time of reformation was when Christ came and died. Either Christ fulfilled the law when He died on Calvary or He didn't. If He did, and the scriptures are clear that is the case, then it was no longer of force. Christ ushered in the New Covenant. Hebrews 9 says that a covenant is of no force while hte testator liveth, but rather it is of force when men are dead.
70 AD marks God's judgement on the Jewish nation. At that time He destroyed all they trusted in - their city, their temple, their geneological records, etc. The temple in that city had already been dispossessed by God. Jesus said "behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Not as earlier "my Father's house" or "My house" but "your house." He then "went out and departed from the temple," and I find no evidence He ever went back. Shortly thereafter would the true temple be broken and raised again, and the New Covenant would be of force. A matter of weeks later the Spirit of God would be poured upon the disciples at which time 3,000 would be converted in a single day, and these would continue steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread. They were New Covenant believers.
70 AD was important, but it wasn't the doing away of the Old Covenant. That was already done by Christ. This was the first message Jesus preached after His resurrection that we have on record and the message the apostles preached. Jesus Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.