The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics

[asterisktom]

Hi, Scripture More Accurately. Welcome to the club:

I do not think that he is in the same club as you. As wrong as he is he does not stoop to being deceitful like you did in your quoting me out of context.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I know I said I was done with this but I just have to ask you about this sentence. According to your belief, when did He become Jesus? Or when did He become Christ?

I have not studied these questions before.

Having said that, I am confident that neither John 8:58 nor Hebrews 13:8 establishes that He was Jesus the Messiah prior to the Incarnation. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 10:4, however, is relevant:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Because of that statement about His being the Christ before the Incarnation, I believe that He became Jesus Christ at the Incarnation.

I also think that this verse is important for you to consider carefully for another reason. Note that Paul says that the people drank the same spiritual drink. He says that even though we know that what they drank was physical water.

So the water that they drank was both physical water and spiritual water. It was spiritual water not because it was not physical but because it was of supernatural origin from the Spirit (hence the designation, spiritual).

In the same way, the glorious bodies that we will have in the future will be both physical bodies and Spiritual bodies.

 

[asterisktom]

I have not studied these questions before.

Having said that, I am confident that neither John 8:58 nor Hebrews 13:8 establishes that He was Jesus the Messiah prior to the Incarnation. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 10:4, however, is relevant:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Because of that statement about His being the Christ before the Incarnation, I believe that He became Jesus Christ at the Incarnation.

I also think that this verse is important for you to consider carefully for another reason. Note that Paul says that the people drank the same spiritual drink. He says that even though we know that what they drank was physical water.

So the water that they drank was both physical water and spiritual water. It was spiritual water not because it was not physical but because it was of supernatural origin from the Spirit (hence the designation, spiritual).

In the same way, the glorious bodies that we will have in the future will be both physical bodies and Spiritual bodies.

OK. I guess we will just disagree, the last part especially. But thank you for answering.

 

[Jerome]

deceitful like you

Wow. Just wow.

I did go back to your post in previous thread to see what all this this talk of David L Cooper of BJU was about. Linked to it, and provided you some history of previous articulation of the concept in the 1800s.

 

[asterisktom]

Wow. Just wow.

I did go back to your post in previous thread to see what all this this talk of David L Cooper of BJU was about. Linked to it, and provided you some history of previous articulation of the concept in the 1800s.

Putting together two different quotes from two different threads decades apart and leaving the impression that it was the same conversation is deceitful.

Anyone can read posts #42 and #43 and see just where the "Wow. Just wow" belongs.

 

[George Antonios]

How valid, Biblically, is the oft-repeated maxim, the Golden Rule of Hermeneutics: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense."?

Now, do you believe that Jesus ascended bodily (flesh and bones) into heaven, yes or no?

So?

 

[asterisktom]

So?

We know He resurrected because Scripture says it. But at some time, the necessity of Incarnation having passed, the days of His flesh, He returned to that glory He had with the Father, John 17.

When, precisely, I wouldn't venture to say. Scripture is silent on that . This is just one thing among others that we would like to have Scripture but, as I think you know, God does not fill in all the blanks.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

We know He resurrected because Scripture says it. But at some time, the necessity of Incarnation having passed, the days of His flesh, He returned to that glory He had with the Father, John 17.

There is no Bible to support the notion that there has been a reversal of the Incarnation. This is heretical teaching.

 

[asterisktom]

There is no Bible to support the notion that there has been a reversal of the Incarnation. This is heretical teaching.

You have no biblical proof of your position.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

You have no biblical proof of your position.

Your claims that the Incarnation has been reversed and that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead are based on your serious mishandling of fundamental gospel teaching in 1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere. Your views are heretical.

 

[George Antonios]

having passed, the days of His flesh, He returned to that glory He had with the Father, John 17.

When, precisely, I wouldn't venture to say. Scripture is silent on that .

Then so must you also be.

 

[asterisktom]

Your claims that the Incarnation has been reversed and that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead are based on your serious mishandling of fundamental gospel teaching in 1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere. Your views are heretical.

I am not concerned about your misinformed appraisal . BTW, 1 Cor. 15 is a key passage for the proper view of resurrection.

Any further replies will not be read. I will ignore you so as not to waste my time.

 

[asterisktom]

Then so must you also be.

Incredibly ironic comment, coming from you.

Any further replies will not be read. I will ignore you so as not to waste my time.