Steadfast Fred
Active Member
We are not talking about the Incarnation, are we?
We are talking about "THIS" same Jesus.
This indicates present tense. This Jesus that they have seen go away will come again... this Jesus.
-
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!
Rapture in 70 AD
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
We are talking about "THIS" same Jesus.
This indicates present tense. This Jesus that they have seen go away will come again... this Jesus.
HisWitness
New Member
again--John described him in his Glory in revelation--He NEVER said they were scars there---why don't you read it real quick !!!
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Likewise, John never said there were no scars there.
Why don't you read it?
Why don't you read it?
HisWitness
New Member
John described his feet unto you--don't you think if he seen scars there--he would have mentioned them--you gagging at a gnat here!!!
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Not necessarily.
The Apostles saw Jesus' face when He appeared to them and showed His hands and side, yet the Gospels do not record His face being marred by the plucking of His beard or the thorns on His brow at that time.
Are we to assume He had the scars in His hands, feet and side, but not those one His back or head?
Sorry, but you, like Tom, are arguing from silence.
Scripture says "this same Jesus" will return. He will be the SAME as when He ascended, bearing the scars of the cross.
The Apostles saw Jesus' face when He appeared to them and showed His hands and side, yet the Gospels do not record His face being marred by the plucking of His beard or the thorns on His brow at that time.
Are we to assume He had the scars in His hands, feet and side, but not those one His back or head?
Sorry, but you, like Tom, are arguing from silence.
Scripture says "this same Jesus" will return. He will be the SAME as when He ascended, bearing the scars of the cross.
HisWitness
New Member
:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:
I am just trying to follow your logic.
And, yes, I am talking about the Incarnation - and all the way before, through eternity past. Tell me, yes or no, if we are still talking about "this same Jesus".
It sounds to me that you only want "this Jesus" to start with His humanity. Correct me if I am wrong.
Consider this passage from John 8:
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Clearly, Jesus speaks of His existence before Abraham even came to be. One cannot even (not saying you would) use a subterfuge and say that, well, it is only the Logos that existed earlier. Clearly Scripture refers to Him as Jesus.
And if it is Jesus it is the "same Jesus".
So this "sameness" cannot have the meaning you are trying to pour into it. A continuance a fleshly nature is not part of this sameness.
And BTW I am not arguing from silence. I am arguing from Scripture. The silence - so far, at least - is coming from you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
When John said Jesus' feet were like brass, I notice he did not say Jesus feet had toes or toenails.
If we are to follow your logic, the only conclusion we can arrive at is since John did not mention seeing toes or toenails on Jesus' feet, He must not have them.
By the way, John never mentioned that Jesus had fingers on his hands. Are we to assume He has no fingers since fingers are not mentioned?
Oh, and He must not have had a nose either. John did not mention one.
If we are to follow your logic, the only conclusion we can arrive at is since John did not mention seeing toes or toenails on Jesus' feet, He must not have them.
By the way, John never mentioned that Jesus had fingers on his hands. Are we to assume He has no fingers since fingers are not mentioned?
Oh, and He must not have had a nose either. John did not mention one.
HisWitness
New Member
Repeated post, by mistake.
DrJamesAch
New Member
John did say he had scars, and so did Thomas. "This same Jesus" must be the same Jesus of whom Thomas said "My Lord and my God" in John 20 when he saw the SCARS post resurrection.
The fact that John says in Revelation 1:7 that they shall LOOK shows that His return was expected to be something that could be literally and physically seen, and one of the things that they see is Him whom they pierced. But nevertheless, they SEE Him, and they SEE Him return, in the same manner that He was SEEN leaving the earth in Acts 1.
The armies of Satan didn't gather against some unseen spiritual return of Christ in Revelation 19:19. They gathered to fight against someone they SAW sitting on a white horse.
There was no "spiritual ascension" and there will not be nor has there ever been a "spiritual return" as Preterists claim occurred in AD 70.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Amen, Dr Ach!
The Preterist can assume and presuppose, but the fact is the Word of God says "THIS SAME JESUS". This indicates present tense. Same indicates no change of appearance. Jesus, well we know who that is too.
:thumbsup::wavey::godisgood:
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJamesAch
New Member
I edited the last post to add something about Revelation 19.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
I edited my last post to reflect that addition. Good post!!
Why even mention this? Who is disagreeing?
Do you even know what Preterists believe?
That this is Jesus is agreed by all. Now I ask you, James, the same thing I asked Fred: Is the Jesus of John 8 also the "same Jesus"?
Part of the passages in John 8 refer to Him as pre-incarnate. If that is also what we agree on as "this same Jesus" then fleshness is not part of that "sameness".
I await your answer.
DrJamesAch
New Member
That is a completely erroneous argument because Thomas and all of the other apostles were referring to the same Jesus in a POST RESURRECTION manner.
Using your logic you could argue that Christ didn't even rise from the dead since His death and resurrection are not commensurate with a preincarnate description of him that indicates any preincarnate scarring. So OF COURSE the preincarnate references would not be the same because He HAD NOT BEEN CRUCIFIED YET.
That is an erroneous argument that has nothing to do with the appearances and physical descriptions of Christ that were given by the apostles POST RESURRECTION and of which THIS description is what is stated as the same Jesus whom they saw, talked with, and SAW THE SCARS, would be the same Jesus that they SEE return in like manner.
convicted1
Guest
I am in "limbo" in regards to this thread. Meaning, I agree with the partial-preterist's view, and that Jesus is coming again. But, I also agree with *(LOL)...that Jesus is w/o His physical body now. And that He is scar free.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Response: "The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth." Jean De La Bruyere
The only thing I was arguing against in this particular thread is someone trying to pour an application in the Acts 1 passage that does not belong there. Specifically I was arguing against using the "this Jesus" phrase there as a proof of His coming back with the same nature that He rose up out of the dead.
That is why I quoted the verses in John 28, where Jesus Himself refers to Himself as existing (without a physical body, I assume we agree) "before Abraham".
We cannot pour meaning into Scripture that we want to be there. We must stick with what we are told.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am using Scripture. Then I am applying logic to the verses I quoted. You are...well, you are neither accounting for my Scripture, nor countering with your own.
All I am getting is a bunch of ALLCAPS and accusations bubblegummed together with the loosest of connections.
- Status