What did Jesus leave behind when He took on human form?

Many would disagree that that is "all that body was for." He also came to reveal the Father.

HEre, I would caution the force of your statement. It is not a contradiction of what Scripture says because Scripture does not say what you are arguing for. It is a contradiction of the conclusions you have drawn from Scripture.

 

Yes, some have that understanding of the details concerning His 1000 year reign but I don't necessarily agree with all the details of every pre-mill teacher since they often disagree among themselves (as do amills and post-mills and midmills and midweek-mills).

HankD

[ April 11, 2005, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Once again Larry you misquote others. I said “….and to fulfill the promise in the Garden of Eden” and that that was “all that that “body” was for. I did not say anything about his not revealing the Father.</font>[/QUOTE]First, I didn't misquote. It was a cut and paste. When you compare, you see I quoted you exactly. Second, your point seemed to be the sacrifice for sin. I was pointing out that many disagree that he only came to be a sacrifice for sin.

So?? I didn't say it was. I said, as you can read, that the other position is not a contradiction of Scripture.

I am not aware of any place where Scripture says what you appear to be saying, that he is no longer in bodily form and will not be during his earthly reign. So far as I can tell, those are the conclusions you draw form Scripture, rather than Scripture itself.

You are certainly right. But that begs the question of if your conclusions are right. I do not believe they are.

Why? I didn't say he did. I have no reason to say that he didn't. Scripture certainly doesn't say that he didn't present himself to unbelievers. That is an argument from silence, and therefore, the opposite (that he may have) is not a contradiction of Scripture. It can't be, since Scripture doesn't say.

We are not told how he revealed himself to man before the fall. It simply says he walked with them in the cool of the day. It says nothign about what form that took. We do know that after the fall, he appeared as a Christophany to many, including Abraham, the three Hebrew children, etc. There doesn't seem anything particularly veiled about that, but then I don't know what you mean by veiled.

Furthermore, I don't quite get the whole point. It seems that you are trying to argue against a future earthly reign by saying that Christ can come back and interact with sinful men. I can't see possible theological support for that. Your case here doesn't seem to carry much water.

 

You konw, Covenant, I chose my words very carefully to avoid any idea that you could get something wrong. But you managed to anyway. I did nothign wrong here.

I pointed out that some disagree that sacrifice was the only reason that Jesus took bodily form.

I pointed out that the position that Christ will have bodily form now and in his earthly reign is not a contradiction of Scripture.

You jumped way off based, pretended I said something I didn't, and then blamed me for it. Your past response to me was wrong and unfortunate. I was disappointed that you responded in personal attacks against me and refused to discuss Scripture. But that is really fine. Don't do it again here. I don't care whether you debate with me or not. Quitely frankly, my only two poitns in this thread are beyond debate. They are factually true. There is no legitimate dispute about those two facts.

 

OK, but I haven't put a glorified Christ back here on earth apart from an interpretation of Revelation 20.

If you wish to make something of all the nuances of "commune" some of which can only be assigned to a father-child relationship with God then there is agreement. But, to "commune" on the basis of a "rod of iron" there apparently is disagreement.

If you don't like the word "details" concerning the several views of millenialism/chiliasm (understandable) then call them "variations" if that is more to your liking.

My choices and preferences have been expressed (though not cast in iron at this time) concerning this issue of the Second Coming and millenialism.

I respect your views and don't take the position that I am any more spiritual than brethren who hold to diffent "variations" of the doctrine of the Second Coming/millenialism .

My immediate purpose in this exchange is to show that there is scriptural support (Revelation 20) for the teaching of millenialism/chiliasm which includes Christ ruling over sinful mankind with a "rod of iron" and not simply a doctrine based on total speculation.

I also realize that the Book of The Revelation has interpretation issues.

However, concering God's ability to communicate with humankind: all mankind including the wicked are God's possession to do with as He pleases, when, where and how He pleases.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

HankD

 

Covenant,

You started out implying that Jesus didn't rise from the dead physically. He did. He also went to the Father and received a glorified body. He has also apparently forever limited the use of his attribute of omnipresence. The Bible does teach that he sits at the Father's right hand. It also teaches that he will return the same way he ascended. If he ascended with a glorified body, one that can walk through doors, or appear here or there, then he will descend with the same kind of body.

That God the Son would forever limit himself to a physical, yet glorifeid, body speaks forcefully to the nature of the incarnation, God with us! I am looking forward to the physical return of Jesus Christ to rule over the world, because that is what the Bible teaches (Zech. 12-14, Rev. 20).

The condescension and humiliation of God the Son in the incarnation is truly remarkable and speaks to the depth of God's love for humanity. No one will be able to accuse God of not reaching down to lost sinners!

Some of your statements regarding the nature of Jesus seem to be significant departures from orthodox Christianity.

 

Covenant,

The very body that was in the tomb is the body that was raised from the tomb.

Would you agree?

How does the text you cite disprove that Jesus is not in a glorfied body. Paul saw a light and heard a voice. That doesn't mean that Jesus therefore cannot be in a glorified body, does it? Scripture now speaks of Jesus sitting at the Father's right hand. Is this merely figurative language?

 

LUke 24:31 says nothing of omnipresence. It speaks of Christ's ability to disappear. It doesn't say he was omnipresent. It merely says that he was no longer with those men. So that hardly disproves "that unscriptural theory."

 

Covenant, we are all Trinitarians and I assume that you are also.

Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Eternal Trinity, the Logos made flesh.

As the Second Person of the Trinity, He is a spirit and is/was and will always be omni-everything.

He is a spirit, He has a body.

The important difference for us to know concerning His body is that He was once mortal, subject to death, His body kept alive by oxygenated blood as His earthly life force.

He shed that blood in the Atonement and is now the Firstborn from the dead made alive by the Spirit (which lives and abides forever) as His life force.

And we also will one day share in this His resurrection.

1 John 3
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
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.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Whatever was put aside for "a little while" has been restored.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

NASB Hebrews 2
9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.


Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...

Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.


HankD

 

"He is a spirit, He has a body."

Just as much God as if He had never been man, just as much man as if He had never been god. To quote someone from the past of which I don't know

 

OT Reference

This was after the fall. He was walking in the garden. Spoke to/questioned them. Then clothed them.

NT Reference

Simply put, Saul was not a believer at the time Christ appeared to him. Scripture says the men that were with Saul did not see who was speaking.

Please don't take this as a knock on you or a start of an arguement between you and I. I am just pointing out some instances.

 

You missed my point. Man sinned before the verses I quoted, then God communed with them before kicking them out of the garden. The sin was committed before God kicked them out of the garden.