The Nature of the Incarnation - Dual or Single?

[asterisktom]

God always existed, so in his divinity is eternal, whilehe also took on the fullness of humanity while incarnated, without sin nature...

God became a man, and same man was ascended back into heaven!

As jesus was raised back up, in same physical body born and died in, just was then glorified!

Jesus Christ already appeared in the Old Testament - and was pointedly quoted in the New Testament as "Jesus" and "Christ".

Secondly, if you say that Christ retains His human flesh now (I assume you do, right?) then we have now a major change for the Son of God. If before he was "divinity" (which I agree with) He would now be divinity 2.0 or divinity+.

Do you see the problem with this?

 

[HankD]

Jesus Christ already appeared in the Old Testament - and was pointedly quoted in the New Testament as "Jesus" and "Christ".

Secondly, if you say that Christ retains His human flesh now (I assume you do, right?) then we have now a major change for the Son of God. If before he was "divinity" (which I agree with) He would now be divinity 2.0 or divinity+.

Do you see the problem with this?

I'm not Yeshua1 but I believe Christ is in His resurrected and glorified body at this very moment. The Logos is Spirit but He has a body.

I don't see a problem with this. God is God and does as He pleases Tom, you know this.

The life force of His Body is now spirit and not oxygenated blood.

Which leads to this question: If Christ is not in the same post resurrection body (the one with which He met, talked and ate with the disciples and later ascended in) what then happened to that post resurrection body?

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

I'm not Yeshua1 but I believe Christ is in His resurrected and glorified body at this very moment. The Logos is Spirit but He has a body.

I don't see a problem with this. God is God and does as He pleases Tom, you know this.

The life force of His Body is now spirit and not oxygenated blood.

Which leads to this question: If Christ is not in the same post resurrection body (the one with which He met, talked and ate with the disciples and later ascended in) what then happened to that post resurrection body?

HankD

I remember this spiritual habeus corpus question last time you asked it. I didn't have an answer then, nor do I have one now. However I don't see that as even an issue. If you want, I could also ask questions along those lines, but they really wouldn't be productive questions.

But getting back to your first comment: You don't see a problem where I do see a problem. Whenever you say "A is X but he has Y" you imply a degree of disunity - not union. You also place the Y below the X. Twofold disunity.

Assuming that you see Christ as the Logos (which I do too, of course), you put something that is not spirit with spirit. However you want to term it "body" cannot be spirit. To that degree this Christ you postulate would not be spirit. Yet Christ says "God is Spirit". To go along these lines is to take something away from God's own deity.

There is a more fundamental problem. This is not a matter of God's doing, but His being. God can do whatever He wants - except deny Himself. He cannot cease altogether to be God.

"The life force of His Body is now spirit and not oxygenated blood."

I'm not sure where you get this. I would not say there was ever a time when His "life force" (for want of a better word) was anything other than His own spiritual essence.

 

[HankD]

I remember this spiritual habeus corpus question last time you asked it. I didn't have an answer then, nor do I have one now. However I don't see that as even an issue. If you want, I could also ask questions along those lines, but they really wouldn't be productive questions.

But getting back to your first comment: You don't see a problem where I do see a problem. Whenever you say "A is X but he has Y" you imply a degree of disunity - not union. You also place the Y below the X. Twofold disunity.
Assuming that you see Christ as the Logos (which I do too, of course), you put something that is not spirit with spirit. However you want to term it "body" cannot be spirit. To that degree this Christ you postulate would not be spirit. Yet Christ says "God is Spirit". To go along these lines is to take something away from God's own deity.

Well brother using your own rebutal, I also do not see any disunity then for the temporal "days of His flesh" while He walked the earth neither then "sitting" at the right hand of God. If there was no disunity then during the days of His flesh, there would be no disunity now in that same post resurrected body.

There is a more fundamental problem. This is not a matter of God's doing, but His being. God can do whatever He wants - except deny Himself. He cannot cease altogether to be God.

ibid - above.
If His incarnation did not cause Him to cease to be God here on earth neither would it if that presence is in heaven.

'The life force of His Body is now spirit and not oxygenated blood.'
I'm not sure where you get this. I would not say there was ever a time when His "life force" (for want of a better word) was anything other than His own spiritual essence.

I am speaking of the blood in the veins and arteries of His mortal body that was subject to death (proven by His crucifixion)- The life of the flesh is in the blood.

I guess we are at a stalemate as you disagree that He is not therefore in that same body (howbeit resurrected and glorified) - that selfsame post resurrection body here on earth which is my belief - which belief you consider problematic. That body which appeared to the disciples, ate a meal with them, showed the scars of the crucifixion to them and in that same body ascended into heaven according to the scriptures of which we are told:

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.​

The ascension was bodily and we are told so also the return.

He also made a post return promise to his disciples/apostles:

Luke 22

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

More promises:

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.​

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

I too have a problem therefore with the lack of explanation of the disposition of that body if my beliefs are not true.

Again a clash of opinions/beliefs/whatever between the literal and the figurative I suppose.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

We are told that when he appears, at that time we will be as he now is!

cannot mean will be God, nor that we will be spiits only, as he will come in a Body!

And in the Incarnation, God the Son assumed Human form AND Humanity, along with keeping his divinity..

Why would he discard the Body once in heaven, as he said that He, JESUS, will be coming back to this earth?

This seems to be dubiously close to JW teaching here as what some hold to, as they hold to Micheal coming in form of jesus, then he died, and his physical body poofed away, and was raised back as Micheal in spirit form again!

Is Tom saying that the Logos/Word became in appearance, but was still jusy God walking around in a human form?

Died, than discarded the physical human shell, and went back to heaven as JUST the Logos again?

That would seem tobe highly unscripturally if held to, as God FULLY became human, even adding to his divinity a perfect human nature!

 

[HankD]

We are told that when he appears, at that time we will be as he now is!

cannot mean will be God, nor that we will be spiits only, as he will come in a Body!

And in the Incarnation, God the Son assumed Human form AND Humanity, along with keeping his divinity..

Why would he discard the Body once in heaven, as he said that He, JESUS, will be coming back to this earth?

This seems to be dubiously close to JW teaching here as what some hold to, as they hold to Micheal coming in form of jesus, then he died, and his physical body poofed away, and was raised back as Micheal in spirit form again!

Is Tom saying that the Logos/Word became in appearance, but was still jusy God walking around in a human form?

Died, than discarded the physical human shell, and went back to heaven as JUST the Logos again?

That would seem tobe highly unscripturally if held to, as God FULLY became human, even adding to his divinity a perfect human nature!

Tom has expressed doubt as to the Logos retaining His resurrected, glorified body (at least as a material entity).

We will just have to wait to see if he will flesh out the details of his belief.

I await his answer to the question of the disposition (or whatever descriptive word is appropriate) of the post resurrected body of Jesus Christ.

Or perhaps another full preterist can explain this or Tom can find a few quotations?

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Tom has expressed doubt as to the Logos retaining His resurrected, glorified body (at least as a material entity).

Not a good beginning, my friend. Perhaps you would like to be more careful as to what I believe - and doubt?

 

[asterisktom]

More promises:

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.​

Just a quick comment before I leave the computer for now: This verse you quoted is much more familiar than known. We are so used o the sound of it that we do not consider the arresting syntax.

The passage, if it is to be support for your position, ought to read "the redemption of our bodies". As it is, we have a plural pronoun (our) coupled with a singular noun (body). The answer is not a lapse in grammar on Paul's part I have actually read that explanation from a commentary!), but an insight on what Paul's emphasis is, both here and in the 1 Cor resurrection chapters - the corporate body of Christ.

Nowhere does Paul - or any other writer in the NT - refer to bodies (plural) being physically resurrected.

In fact, as good beginning study, look up the word "bodies" in the New Testament and see which ones can fit into your paradigm.

Take care.

 

[asterisktom]

We are told that when he appears, at that time we will be as he now is!

No, we are not told that. We are told we will be like Him. We need to be carefully to distinguish what Scripture says from what we think/assume/hope Scripture says. We can't depart from the ink of the Word, so to speak, reading between the lines.

We shall be like Christ. There is a word for that: Christlikeness. To say the word is already to conjure up the right direction our thinking should go in:

In this life we are to be like Him in spiritual character, modeling all those communicable attributes He has engraced us with, Christ being formed in us.

In the next life - the real life - we will be like Him, pure spirit, being very much individual persons, but unencumbered by physicality.

 

[Yeshua1]

Did God resurrect jesus in a physical/glorified body?

Jesus said that he was NOT spirit, a ghost, and that he would rise up SAME body 3 days later!

 

[Yeshua1]

the glory of that will be that we will always see his nail scarred hands as eternal reminder of How much he loves us!

 

[asterisktom]

Why would he discard the Body once in heaven, as he said that He, JESUS, will be coming back to this earth?

Does Jesus need to wear a human body like a spacesuit to come to Earth? He didn't in the Incarnation. We need to stop thinking along earthly lines, but follow what the Bible actually says.

This seems to be dubiously close to JW teaching here as what some hold to, as they hold to Micheal coming in form of jesus, then he died, and his physical body poofed away, and was raised back as Micheal in spirit form again!

Is Tom saying that the Logos/Word became in appearance, but was still jusy God walking around in a human form?

It seems like JW to you because you have absorbed a mere tradition that masquerades as essential Christian doctrine.

And, no, Tom is not saying what you say I am saying. That would be the heresy of Docetism, along with a couple other heresies.

If you have any other questions about what I believe don't ask others, ask me. I am a person on this board, not a potted plant in the corner.

Died, than discarded the physical human shell, and went back to heaven as JUST the Logos again?

"JUST"? Jesus was just the Logos throughout eternity past.

 

[asterisktom]

the glory of that will be that we will always see his nail scarred hands as eternal reminder of How much he loves us!

This is all modern sentimental pseudo-Christian myth. You would make the spiritual Christ have eternal physical fleshly scars forever - and call it glorious.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is all modern sentimental pseudo-Christian myth. You would make the spiritual Christ have eternal physical fleshly scars forever - and call it glorious.

Do you still see jesus as being Jesus, the God/man?

Or did he discard His humanity, and went back to being JUST God, that his play acting as a man was done with?

 

[asterisktom]

deleted for now

 

[asterisktom]

Do you still see jesus as being Jesus, the God/man?

Or did he discard His humanity, and went back to being JUST God, that his play acting as a man was done with?

"Play acting"? I already answered your last question. Furthermore, do you want respectful discussion, or do you want to keep doing what you are doing? Let me know, because if the latter, I am not going to waste my time on you when there are plenty here who actually know the difference between being disagreeable and disagreeing.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 Tim. 2:5

There is the answer to your first question.

 

[HankD]

Not a good beginning, my friend. Perhaps you would like to be more careful as to what I believe - and doubt?

From your post #16

I see no reason why He should retain the two natures now. Nor do I see verses for it. There was a soteriological reason for His assuming flesh at one time, but that reason is not a factor now. I believe that Christ returned to that glory - and to that nature - that He had before the Incarnation, just as He prayed in John 17

To see - in one of it's uses in the English language implies understanding, I'm sorry for a misuse of "doubt" or "believe".

So in your understanding Tom does Jesus now reside in heaven as the God-man with/in the same post resurrection body with which He appeared to the apostles, ate a meal, showed His scars and later ascended into heaven?

If not what happened to that post resurrection body that ate, retained scars, ascended into heaven, etc?

"I don't know" or "I'm not sure yet" is acceptable (to me anyway).
However a more comprehensive answer would be better.

Tom, I consider you a brother and a friend, It's a debate question to understand your full preterist point of view and expand upon the full preterist view of the post-resurrection humanity of Christ.

Am I looking for and pointing out weaknesses of full preterism?

Yes, from my position, it has its weaknesses like every other defined theological point of view.
But not only am I looking for weaknesses but also for understanding.

I'll try not to ask again (I hope I remember that promise, remind me if I break it, old age you know) unless at your behest or answer.

Thanks
HankD

 

[humblethinker]

If Jesus only went back as far as the Incarnation then we have a problem with other verses, Heb. 13:8 for one .

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever."

Was the writer thinking only a few decades back when he wrote "yesterday"?

What would you propose that the writer is saying? Looking at the context, in no way does this understanding conflict.

7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.

11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

In CONTEXT, the writer was saying that they will not learn of a different Jesus than the one their 'leaders' taught (vs 7 and 17). He was not addressing the idea of whether Jesus did not have a physical body before he was born. It seems the writer was not speaking in a way that would support how you've used your quote.

John 12:41 quotes Isaiah as referring to Christ. "He saw His [Christ's] glory"

I Cor. 10:4 says that "the Rock which followed them [Israel in the wilderness] was Christ".

Don't get me wrong, both of you. I am not thinking that you would have any problem with those verses. I am just getting back to the point I had made earlier that the fact of Jesus' assumption of human flesh was temporal, ad hoc (here meaning, mission-related) and is not a part of Christ's changeless nature.

Correct I don't have any problem with those verses. Are you saying that you DO believe that Jesus experienced a temporal action?

He part on flesh for the purpose of identification, obedience, and the salvation of the ones He came to seek.

"For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

I agree but I don't see how this addresses our disagreement. I do admire your commitment to philosophical consistency.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you see the Man Christ jesus in heaven right before, interceding as our high priest than?

 

[Yeshua1]

This is all modern sentimental pseudo-Christian myth. You would make the spiritual Christ have eternal physical fleshly scars forever - and call it glorious.

jesus was born 2000 years ago, as that was the humanity of the God/Man, but His divine nature was from eternity past, as he was with God and was God, and now forever united as God/man!

That is the great mystery and glory, that God would allow himself to become fully man, a being 100 % both god/man, and yet willing to taste physical death, and forever be remaining as God/Man!

that allows him to be our high priest, as neing still a man and God, able to fully understand our problems/identifing with us..

How great a saviour we have, and we will always be reminded of that when we see his nail scarred wrists/feet!