| Author | Message | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 290 Registered: 10-2001 |
I had discussed this with an Adventist some time back and he said that Jesus only ascended once. I never remember hearing that Jesus ascended twice in Adventism so I thought it was a "christian" doctrine. I'll have to do some study into this. Colleen, what about Jesus saying He hadn't yet been glorified? When did that happen? What about no one recognizing Him? I'm a bit confused now. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 163 Registered: 10-2004 |
I don't see where Jesus says He hadn't been "glorified" yet. And what do you mean by "no one recognizing Him"? Jeremy | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 66 Registered: 8-2004 |
I'm not sure about the 'glorified' part, but the 'no one recognizing Him' is a reference to the diciples on the road to Emmaus. helovesme2 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1050 Registered: 12-2003 |
John 7:39 says that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified. On Thursday night after Judas left to betray Jesus, He said Now is the Son glorified. The glorification of Jesus was his death, his resurrection, and his exaltation at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Spirit could not be given until Jesus was glorified, and that glory included all of His salvation work including sitting at Jesus' right hand. His gentle rebuke of Mary, though, did not include his not having been glorified--just that he hadn't ascended yet. Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 623 Registered: 7-2003 |
Here's one scenario on the not recognizing him. If you look in scripture, it talks about him being flesh and BONE after his ascension. (Luke 24:39). I can't find all the references at the moment, but I herd a pastor speculating (purely speculating, not dogmatic at all) one time that perhaps his glorified body didn't have blood?? It can get a little morbid here, so bear with me. I watched an uncle die in the hospital one time. One of the things I noticed as his heart had quit beating was that he was bruising, so I thought. But it was actually the blood pooling in the low parts of his body...where his arm was bent at the elbow, fingertips etc. As the blood leaves the body, it becomes very pale, which is why when we see people in caskets we often think they don't look like themselves. I think we don't recognize the color our blood actually adds to our skin. They try to mimic it with makeup, etc., but it's not the same as "natural" color. When the pastor was making this "what if" from different things scripture said I was thinking about this experience with my uncle ... and it began to make sense why they didn't recognize Christ in his resurrected body. There is nothing hard and fast in scripture to say yes or no on this, but just some subtle references where Christ says he is flesh and blood at one point, but flesh and bone later. Maybe it's just a phrase that was common in those days and doesn't say anything about resurrected bodies, but it seems logical to me given the fact they hadn't recognize Christ. Just food for thought.... We'll all know some day. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 249 Registered: 4-2000 |
ANOTHER VIEW When Jesus told Mary not to touch him and that he had not yet ascended to the Father, it meant not to CLING to him as an earthly friend--being a new covenant had been instituted. Physically, He would not be in the world very long. Their RELATIONSHIP, from now on, would be different. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 291 Registered: 10-2001 |
Well, Melissa, there is the scripture that no blood or flesh enters heaven. Dennis, Don't you think she just wanted to hug Him? Cling/touch.it looks like He just didn't want her to contact Him. Wish I had time to study it out, but not at the moment. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not putting one bit of support to Batchelor's comments. I just thought that since the SDA's say Jesus hasn't yet applied the blood and the atonement is not yet finished, the double ascension would refute them. I suppose He could have done that in the Spirit when He descended to hell and ascended to Paradise. I dunno, guess it isn't too clear. | ||
| Hiddenmanna Registered user Username: Hiddenmanna Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2004 |
I order for us to understand Christ ascention we must first understand His resurrection because it was from that state he ascended into heaven The Resurrection of Christ: Physical or Non-physical? This discussion opens a ěcan of wormsî doctrinally speaking, as this doctrine lies at the very core of the Christian faith, supposedly - according to Creedalists and traditionists anyway. ěIf you deny the PHYSICAL resurrection of Christî (they say, authoritatively) ěyou deny the Christian faith, and are no more than a heretic or worseî. SO...this idea that Christ Jesus rose from the grave PHYSICALLY (which I subscribed to myself, for many years) must be examined and critiqued carefully and with the utmost care taken to evaluate the language, inferences and context associated with all texts relevant to this event. One of the most popular passages of Scripture associated with this subject is 1Corinthians 15. Paul goes engages in a lengthy homily on the subject of the resurrection, and in actual fact - at no point in this passage does he specify that CHRISTíS resurrection was, indeed, PHYSICAL. In fact, he does the opposite. Without going through the passage verse by verse, suffice it to say that Paul clearly states (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that Christ was raised a SPIRIT being. 45 And so it is written, ěThe first man Adam became a living being.î The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual .47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1Cor. 15:45-50) In the context, then, of Paulís homily on the resurrection concept, he clearly states (above, in v.45) that Christ Jesus was made a ělife-giving SPIRITî. The argument that Christ ascended into heaven in bodily, physical form, then, is totally defeated by this statement. Paulís subsequent statements, as highlighted above, further emphasize and reiterate the point that physical bodies ARE NOT PERMITTED entrance into Godís Presence in heaven. Those who dwell with God in the heavenlies have spirit forms, NOT physical bodies. Christ Jesus Himself made this very clear in His defense of the resurrection to the Sadducees, in Matt. 22:30, ěFor in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven .î There is no marrying or giving in marriage in ěthe resurrectionî (the place to which the saints were resurrected, in the First Century - the heavenly Promised Land) because those who participate in it and dwell in heaven eternally ARE LIKE THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN. They do not PROCREATE, because they are NON-PHYSICAL SPIRIT BEINGS, like the angels. We know the angels are non-physical spirit beings through the clear statements of many texts such as Heb. 1:7, ěAnd of the angels He says: ě Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.î Christís tomb was empty because the angels ěspiritedî His physical, pre-death body away (the physical body He possessed during His earthly ministry). NO-ONE witnessed Christ walking out of the tomb and handled him physically to verify that at the moment of his exiting the tomb He possessed His previous, physical body. In actual fact, Christ rose from ěthe deadî (the place of the dead - Sheol) as a Living Being, in SPIRIT form. He could assume any appearance He chose, which is why the disciples on the road to Emmaus didnít immediately recognize Him as He conversed with them, and why when they DID recognize Him, He immediately VANISHED OUT OF THEIR SIGHT (as SPIRIT BEINGS are capable to do, but which action PHYSICAL BEINGS are not capable of). 13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him ... 30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 And they said to one another, ěDid not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?î 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, ěThe Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!î 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. It COULD be argued that this instance of His post-resurrection appearances to His disciples was evidence of Godís hand upon THEM, in blinding them to Christís true identity until a specific moment in their interactions. In other words, some might argue that this anecdote doesnít speak directly to Christís post-resurrection form, but to His disciplesí perceptions, as governed by God. But let us consider other texts in conjunction with the one above, to see if there is further clarification elsewhere. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God , even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead (Acts 10:40,41) This Jesus who was raised from the dead was an interesting Being. He was not readily visible to just anyone alive in those days. Rather, it was necessary to SHOW Him to people (i.e. to MANIFEST Him to people). Spirit beings have always had the capacity to take on physical form for brief periods of time, MANIFESTING themselves in physical form for various reasons. We see this in Godís appearance to Abraham, where He appeared to him in the form of three men and actually LUNCHED with Abraham. We see the angel physically WRESTLING with Jacob in Genesis also, and other instances of spirit beings taking on physical characteristics and appearance for a time, to accomplish a specific purpose. I believe the bulk of the Scriptural evidence (which hasnít been presented here in this introductory post by any means), shows that Christ Jesus ALSO had this type of form. The one text most commonly used to attempt to refute the idea that Christís resurrection was strictly spiritual is His appearance to Thomas and His words to Him, found in Luke 24:39, ěBehold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.î Christ Jesus SEEMS to be stating that He is NOT a ěresurrected spirit beingî here. But if we consider His actual words carefully, it becomes evident that He is inferring, or implying, that He is not a disembodied ěghostî or ědeceiving spiritî, but that He WAS, in fact, the risen Lord. The whole point of these manifestations of Himself, physically, to His followers, was to confirm that His PERSON was raised from Sheol, and His spirit was NOT still imprisoned, awaiting the resurrection, like their forefathers. Christ was concerned that His followers understand that the Person with whom they were interacting was HIM, and not just a phantom or spectre, tricking them into thinking that He had risen. A mere ěspiritî of a departed person does not manifest physical qualities (not until it is resurrected and glorified, anyway) but a resurrected SPIRIT BEING (a person who has experienced resurrection) and has taken on a ěheavenly formî, is essentially spirit in essence, and yet has the capacity to manifest himself physically, at will. If Christ possessed the IDENTICAL physical body He had on the cross and before, during His earthly ministry, He would NOT have been able to pass through closed, locked doors and materialize in front of His disciples (John 20:19ff.), nor could He dematerialize in front of their eyes (like He did with the disciples on their way to Emmaus). If Christ possessed the very same physical body that went INTO the tomb, it would not have been necessary for God to MAKE HIM VISIBLE to select witnesses to His resurrection (per the statements in Acts 10, above). Iíve opened this discussion with some random observations touching on a variety of texts, and while this may create the impression that I am ěproof-textingî an idea that has been trumped up, the reality is that this is much more soundly researched and established on sound exegetical treatments of the relevant texts than it might appear here. I do invite respectful, thoughtful interaction and contributions to this discussion from any and all who find this subject worth pursuing through reasonable, rational dialogue. Thank you in advance to all who find themselves capable of reasoning in a calm and soundly Biblical manner, and proceed to demonstrate this here. | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 294 Registered: 10-2001 |
No offense, but I do not receive any of that. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 165 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hiddenmanna, I totally disagree with what you say. According to your statements, there is no such thing as a physical resurrection. But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that we will have a body at the resurrection. He says that "All flesh [is] not the same flesh" but nonetheless we will have flesh! You say that Jesus could not have "disappeared" if He had a body, yet there are several instances recorded in the gospels of Him doing this while on earth, before His death! The Emmaus passage does not say that Jesus didn't have a body, it says that their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him and then their eyes were opened. And no matter how much you try to get around it, Luke 24:39 clearly goes against what you're saying. And, in John 20, Jesus showed Thomas His nail prints! Do you think He just made up some FAKE nail prints to show him???!! When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:47 (NASB), "The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven" he is saying that Jesus' body came from heaven. Jesus' body did not come from Mary--the Word became flesh. But we do not need to speculate about whether or not Jesus' resurrection was physical, when the Bible clearly tells us in Colossians 2:9 that Jesus currently has a body! "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 488 Registered: 7-2003 |
CHRIS SAID: Hiddenmanna, I definitely donít want to get into an extended discussion, because my past experiences in such online discussion tell me that they are seldom profitable. However, this seems like an important enough topic that I would like to say a few words primarily for others reading that may have an interest. Although I havenít taken the time to properly footnote everything, I am most deeply indebted to Wayne Grudem for his cogent presentation of the topic of Christís resurrection. HIDDENMANNA SAID: I order for us to understand Christ ascension we must first understand His resurrection because it was from that state he ascended into heaven The Resurrection of Christ: Physical or Non-physical? This discussion opens a ěcan of wormsî doctrinally speaking, as this doctrine lies at the very core of the Christian faith, supposedly - according to Creedalists and traditionists anyway. ěIf you deny the PHYSICAL resurrection of Christî (they say, authoritatively) ěyou deny the Christian faith, and are no more than a heretic or worseî. SO...this idea that Christ Jesus rose from the grave PHYSICALLY (which I subscribed to myself, for many years) must be examined and critiqued carefully and with the utmost care taken to evaluate the language, inferences and context associated with all texts relevant to this event. One of the most popular passages of Scripture associated with this subject is 1Corinthians 15. Paul goes engages in a lengthy homily on the subject of the resurrection, and in actual fact - at no point in this passage does he specify that CHRISTíS resurrection was, indeed, PHYSICAL. In fact, he does the opposite. Without going through the passage verse by verse, suffice it to say that Paul clearly states (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that Christ was raised a SPIRIT being. 45 And so it is written, ěThe first man Adam became a living being.î The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual .47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1Cor. 15:45-50) In the context, then, of Paulís homily on the resurrection concept, he clearly states (above, in v.45) that Christ Jesus was made a ělife-giving SPIRITî. The argument that Christ ascended into heaven in bodily, physical form, then, is totally defeated by this statement. CHRIS SAID: I would differ with your analysis of I Cor. 15. By ěspiritual bodyî, Paul doesnít mean ěimmaterialî but is saying that it will be suited to and responsive to the guidance of the Spirit. The word ěspiritualî (pneumatikos) never means ěnonphysicalî in Paulís letters. Paul used the pneumatikos in the sense of being consistent with the character and activity of the Holy Spirit. For examples see Rom. 1.11, 7.14, I Cor. 2.13, 2.15, 3.1, 14.37, Gal. 6.1 and eph. 5.19. In the verse in question, I Cor. 15.44, it should be noted that Paul sets up a contrast, and it is NOT a contrast between a ěphysicalî and a ěspiritualî body, it is a contrast between a ěnaturalî (psychikos) and a ěSpiritualî (pneumatikos) body. He could have used the word for physical if he had wanted to, but he did not because this was not the contrast he was making. Paul was contrasting a body that is living in is own life and strength and in the characteristics of this present age, not fully subject to or conforming to the character and will of the Holy Spirit with a spiritual body that is completely subject to the will of the Spirit and responsive to His guidance. This latter type of body is not ěnon-physicalî. Itís a physical body that is raised up in the perfection that God originally planned for it. HIDDENMANNA SAID: Paulís subsequent statements, as highlighted above, further emphasize and reiterate the point that physical bodies ARE NOT PERMITTED entrance into Godís Presence in heaven. Those who dwell with God in the heavenlies have spirit forms, NOT physical bodies. CHRIS SAID: As noted above I do not think Paulís statements make your point. I also see some confusion in the idea that in the final state we dwell in spirit form in the ěheavenliesî. The testimony of scripture seems to be that the resurrected saints will live forever in ěnew heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwellsî (2 Peter 3.13). This sounds to me like a renewed physical earth that ěwill be set free from its bondage to decayî (Rom 8.21). All the language used in Revelation to describe this reality sounds very physical indeed (Rev. 21.26, 22.1-2). HIDDENMANA SAID: Christ Jesus Himself made this very clear in His defense of the resurrection to the Sadducees, in Matt. 22:30, ěFor in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven .î There is no marrying or giving in marriage in ěthe resurrectionî (the place to which the saints were resurrected, in the First Century - the heavenly Promised Land) because those who participate in it and dwell in heaven eternally ARE LIKE THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN. They do not PROCREATE, because they are NON-PHYSICAL SPIRIT BEINGS, like the angels. We know the angels are non-physical spirit beings through the clear statements of many texts such as Heb. 1:7, ěAnd of the angels He says: ě Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.î CHRIS SAID: With all due respect, it sounds very much like you are reading your own biases into this text (eisegesis). There is no contextual reason to apply Jesusí words regarding the resurrection to the 1st century or to a ěheavenly Promised Landî. It would seem much more consistent with the rest of scripture to understand ěthe resurrectionî that Jesus speaks of as what occurs when He returns to this earth the second time. Also, it doesnít follow that humans will not procreate because they are not physical beings. Jesus does not say, ěYou will be spiritual beings like angelsî, only that we will be like angels in the sense that we do not marry. Thatís the most we can take out of this text using good hermeneutics. HIDDENMANA SAID: Christís tomb was empty because the angels ěspiritedî His physical, pre-death body away (the physical body He possessed during His earthly ministry). CHRIS SAID: There simply is no valid Biblical support for such a claim. Scripture does not say this. HIDDENMANA SAID: NO-ONE witnessed Christ walking out of the tomb and handled him physically to verify that at the moment of his exiting the tomb He possessed His previous, physical body. In actual fact, Christ rose from ěthe deadî (the place of the dead - Sheol) as a Living Being, in SPIRIT form. CHRIS SAID: Although the topic of whether or not Christ was in ěSheolî and if so, which part of ěSheolî and to do what is an interesting one, itís really ancillary to this discussion. However, the assertion that He rose in ěSPIRIT formî is more eisegesis as it cannot be show from scripture using solid hermeneutics. HIDDENMANA SAID: He could assume any appearance He chose, which is why the disciples on the road to Emmaus didnít immediately recognize Him as He conversed with them, and why when they DID recognize Him, He immediately VANISHED OUT OF THEIR SIGHT (as SPIRIT BEINGS are capable to do, but which action PHYSICAL BEINGS are not capable of). 13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him ... 30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 And they said to one another, ěDid not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?î 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, ěThe Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!î 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. It COULD be argued that this instance of His post-resurrection appearances to His disciples was evidence of Godís hand upon THEM, in blinding them to Christís true identity until a specific moment in their interactions. In other words, some might argue that this anecdote doesnít speak directly to Christís post-resurrection form, but to His disciplesí perceptions, as governed by God. CHRIS SAID: Not only COULD this be argued, but from a purely scriptural perspective it SHOULD be argued. Luke specifically says the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him because ětheir eyes were kept from recognizing himî (Lk. 24.16). Later Luke tells us ětheir eyes were opened and they recognized himî (Lk. 24.31). Why force another meaning on these versus other than the simple straight forward one? Iíll address the vanishing farther on down. HIDDENMANNA SAID: But let us consider other texts in conjunction with the one above, to see if there is further clarification elsewhere. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God , even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead (Acts 10:40,41) This Jesus who was raised from the dead was an interesting Being. He was not readily visible to just anyone alive in those days. Rather, it was necessary to SHOW Him to people (i.e. to MANIFEST Him to people). CHRIS SAID: You have inserted the word ěmanifestî where it does not exist. However, this not withstanding, nothing in the text you reference requires that Christ be a non-physical Spirit being. The fact that only 500 or so people were chosen to be direct eye-witnesses to his resurrection (I Cor. 15.6) does not require Christ to be a non-physical spirit being. HIDDENMANNA SAID: Spirit beings have always had the capacity to take on physical form for brief periods of time, MANIFESTING themselves in physical form for various reasons. We see this in Godís appearance to Abraham, where He appeared to him in the form of three men and actually LUNCHED with Abraham. We see the angel physically WRESTLING with Jacob in Genesis also, and other instances of spirit beings taking on physical characteristics and appearance for a time, to accomplish a specific purpose. CHRIS SAID: To say that at certain times God sovereignly ordained an angelophany, theophany, or Christophany is not quite the same thing as the expansive blanket statement you make when you say ěSpirit beings have always had the capacity to take on physical formî. There is no indication that angels, demons, or the dead can do this apart from it being an act of God. This might lead to an interesting discussion, but one that is really once again ancillary to the question of Christís resurrection body. Christ is distinct from angels, demons, or any other spirit creatures in that he rose from the dead as the ěfirst fruitsî (I Cor. 15.20, 23) of a new kind of human life, a human whose body was made perfect, no longer subject to weakness, aging, or death, but able to live eternally. HIDDENMANNA SAID: I believe the bulk of the Scriptural evidence (which hasnít been presented here in this introductory post by any means), shows that Christ Jesus ALSO had this type of form. CHRIS SAID: We will have to agree to disagree on that one. HIDDENMANNA SAID: The one text most commonly used to attempt to refute the idea that Christís resurrection was strictly spiritual is His appearance to Thomas and His words to Him, found in Luke 24:39, ěBehold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.î Christ Jesus SEEMS to be stating that He is NOT a ěresurrected spirit beingî here. But if we consider His actual words carefully, it becomes evident that He is inferring, or implying, that He is not a disembodied ěghostî or ědeceiving spiritî, but that He WAS, in fact, the risen Lord. The whole point of these manifestations of Himself, physically, to His followers, was to confirm that His PERSON was raised from Sheol, and His spirit was NOT still imprisoned, awaiting the resurrection, like their forefathers. Christ was concerned that His followers understand that the Person with whom they were interacting was HIM, and not just a phantom or spectre, tricking them into thinking that He had risen. A mere ěspiritî of a departed person does not manifest physical qualities (not until it is resurrected and glorified, anyway) but a resurrected SPIRIT BEING (a person who has experienced resurrection) and has taken on a ěheavenly formî, is essentially spirit in essence, and yet has the capacity to manifest himself physically, at will. CHRIS SAID: Once again, if we just accept Jesus at His word, then he clearly had a body with ěflesh and bonesî (lk. 24.39). This body could eat, drink, break bread, prepare breakfast, and be touched. If Jesus repeatedly appeared to the disciples in a physical body, eating and drinking with them (Acts 10.41) over forty days, and if he ascended into heaven in that same physical body (acts 1.9), and if the angel then told the disciples that ěthis Jesus, who was taken up from you into heave, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heavenî (acts 1.11), then Jesus was quite clearly teaching the disciples that his resurrection body was a *physical body* To suggest otherwise is to suggest that Jesus is guilty of misleading his disciples (including us) and trying to make them (and us) think that His resurrection body remained physical when it did not. It would be misleading for Jesus to say, ěSee my hands and my fee, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I haveî (lk. 24.39). Note that he didnít say, ěÖflesh and bones, as you see that I *temporarily* have.î Why would Jesus teach and demonstrate that He had a physical body if it were not true? HIDDENMANNA SAID: If Christ possessed the IDENTICAL physical body He had on the cross and before, during His earthly ministry, He would NOT have been able to pass through closed, locked doors and materialize in front of His disciples (John 20:19ff.), CHRIS SAID: We donít know if the doors were locked or just shut. The Greek perfect participle ěkekeismenonî could mean either. I donít think we can make too much of the fact that Jesus came and stood among the disciples when the doors were shut. No text says that Jesus passed through walls. On another occasion in the NT, when Peter needed to pass through a locked door, the door miraculously opened for him (Acts 12.10). I am not saying that it might not have been possible for Jesus to miraculously pass through the door somehow through an act of God, just that no text says He did so itís not a forgone conclusion. HIDDENMANNA SAID: nor could He dematerialize in front of their eyes (like He did with the disciples on their way to Emmaus). CHRIS SAID: You have inserted the word ědematerializeî where it does not exist. ěDematerializeî has a much different meaning/connotation then ěvanishedî. Many of us have had a momentary scare when one of our kids suddenly vanished in a department store. Of course thatís not the same as saying they became immaterial or non-physical. This occasion may have been a special miraculous occurrence similar to one happened in Acts 8.39 when ěthe Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no moreî. I donít think that anyone would argue that this means Philip must have been a non-physical spirit being. HIDDENMANNA SAID: If Christ possessed the very same physical body that went INTO the tomb, it would not have been necessary for God to MAKE HIM VISIBLE to select witnesses to His resurrection (per the statements in Acts 10, above). CHRIS SAID: The word that you are hanging your hat on here is ěemphanesî. According to Zodhiates TCWSD, ěMetaphorically meaning apparent, manifest, knownî. As addressed above, for God to make Christ apparent, manifest, or known to 500 people does not require that Christ be a non-physical spirit being. HIDDENMANNA SAID: Iíve opened this discussion with some random observations touching on a variety of texts, and while this may create the impression that I am ěproof-textingî an idea that has been trumped up, the reality is that this is much more soundly researched and established on sound exegetical treatments of the relevant texts than it might appear here. I do invite respectful, thoughtful interaction and contributions to this discussion from any and all who find this subject worth pursuing through reasonable, rational dialogue. Thank you in advance to all who find themselves capable of reasoning in a calm and soundly Biblical manner, and proceed to demonstrate this here. CHRIS SAID: It is my hope that I have been respectful and polite even though I disagree with your premise very strongly. I have no wish to debate or to carry on lengthy discussion on the topic as I find online debate to be tedious and seldom fruitful. However, I don think this is a very important topic. Jesusí physical resurrection body affirms the goodness of Godís creation of man as a spirit and mind entity, with both aspects being very good. There is no need to set up a dualism between our spirit and our body as we are meant to one day exist as humans that have spiritual spirits and spiritual bodies. Salvation includes the redemption of both. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is our guarantee and promise of one-day experiencing the same. Chris References Include in order of debt: Systematic Theology ń Wayne Grudem (much paraphrasing) NASB Greek Dictionary The Complete Word Study Dictionary NT ń Spiros Zodhiates | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1055 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris, thank you for an excellent response re: Christ's resurrection body. In 2 Corinthians 15:35-49 Paul is discussing the nature of resurrection bodies. He explains that just as a seed must die in the ground before a plant can emerge, so a mortal body dies and is resurrected immortal. He compares the bodies of heavenly and earthly things, stars, sun, and moon. He points out that they are all different and have different types of glory--but the thing is, they are all bodies. Never does he back away from calling the resurrection reality a body. The fact that he calls it a spiritual body does not make it only a "spirit". The text says "body"--but it will be a spiritual instead of a natural body. Just as in literature, we cannot read into the Biblical text what is not there. It's always tempting to speculate, to take some of the words literally and to take the rest figuratively. Unless there is textual evidence to support this type of reading, we just can't do that type of interpreting. We must be faithful to the text, or we go far afield. When Paul repeatedly says "body", and when Jesus shows His body to the disciples, inviting Thomas to touch his scars, then we must understand that word literally. The point is, resurrection bodies will be different from earthly ones. Here we are limited to three dimensions. Our resurrection bodies will be created to live in eternity, outside of our three dimensions and time. Of course they will function differently from our earth-bound bodies. But bodies they will be. As Chris says above, our salvation brings our spirits to life, and then it brings our bodies to eternal life. In Romans 8:23 Paul says we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait for the redemption of our bodies. When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that we will have spiritual bodies, he simply means they are not natural. They are from heaven, not from our parents. We don't know exactly what they'll be like, but they will be real. Hiddenmanna, we really must take the text literally and seriously, just as we would if we were reading any other literature. If we assume the words are up for interpretation, then we are writing our own text instead of using the text God breathed. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 489 Registered: 7-2003 |
I just noted a misstake on my part. My mind wasn't keeping up with my fingers. This should read: "Jesusí physical resurrection body affirms the goodness of Godís creation of man as a spirit and body entity, with both aspects being very good." | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 67 Registered: 8-2004 |
Spiritual vs. Physical - I thought I'd just add my two cents worth on Jesus' resurrection body: I used to think that 'spiritual' was a synonym for 'ephemeral, vaporous, ghostly' or perhaps 'figuratively, morally, ideally'. Especially in Adventism I understood that the 'spirit' was 'breath', something we 'have' rather than something we 'are'. I think now though, that Spirit is something bigger and more inclusive than physical. After all God is a Spirit. Does that make him somehow less than us who have physical bodies? I understand that makes him MORE. Definition #4 in "The American HeritageĆ Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000" is: "A supernatural being". Jesus is a supernatural being. That does not preclude him having a physical, touchable, living body. Yes his body is different than ours are right now, and he has abilities we do not. But he had abilities we do not even before he was resurrected! And the Bible is clear that even though He was able to do things that we can't, He was a real, tangible person after the resurrection as well as before. Not just a manacheist phantom. I think that 'spiritual realities' are so much bigger than what we think of as natural that our brains can't comprehend them. They are more real and permanent than what we think of at firm and clear today, not less. They are the reality that our world is based on, not somehow a faded, vaporous copy. Yet, often our brains would rather make things we don't understand somehow less then us rather than more than us. The unseen realities are eternal. In fact if you want something that is wispy and fading away, how about our natural, unregenerate beings? Ok. I think I'm rambling now! I'll stop for now! helovesme2 | ||
| Hiddenmanna Registered user Username: Hiddenmanna Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2004 |
Colleen I believe that the resurrection was the OT saints from the body of Moses into the body of Christ which occured when the city and temple were destroyed in 70 AD. Paul's Change in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory. "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" (1 Corinthians 15:51-55) In order to understand the change that Paul says the (first century saints) would go through (we shall all be changed) We as in Paul looked forward to be changed also. We today must understand the change according to the Bible and Paul's understanding, and not the traditional idea's of the change today. What was this great change that the living would go through? Lest start at the beginning of the Bible. In Genesis 2:15-17 God told man concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "in the day you eat thereof you will surely die." Man and woman ate of the fruit. Did they die that day? Amazingly, most people will say "No!" because Adam and Eve did not die physically after they ate the forbidden fruit. But this is not the whole story. And Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden the day they ate the fruit. Thus, Adam and Eve died spiritually because they were cast out of the presence of God. If Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate then Satan told the truth and God lied! God said you will die in the day you eat, Satan said you will not surely die, Genesis 3:1ff. Who told the truth to Adam and Eve? Unless one can find Adam and Eve physically dead in Genesis 2-3, then the death they died was spiritual and not physical. Death in this context means separation, sin-death, (i.e. separation from God caused by sin); not physical death. In Romans 5:20 we read Paul said the law was added, "that sin might abound." This does not mean that God gave the Old Law to make men sin more ó man had no problem doing that on his own as we see in Genesis. But God gave the Old Law to make sin appear exceedingly sinful, to make man acutely aware of his sinfulness. The New Testament writers likened life under the Old Covenant to death, because all those under the Law were under the curse, Gal. 3:10. Paul called the Old Testament the "ministration of death" because all it did was condemn; it could not justify, Romans 8:1-3. In chapter 7 of the same book Paul said: "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" vs. 9-11. Can Paul be speaking of physical death? If so, then he was saying he was a physical dead man who was still physically writing, apparently not. Yet he said he had died. Paul's "dying" is to be equated with the old covenant. This is in the present tense. This is the law that Paul labored under created a "body of death." (Romans. 7:24) My point is that Paul calls that Old Law the Ministration of Death because it could not deliver from sin. Paul had learned that he could not earn righteousness in all of his efforts under the Law and all attempt to do so were actually death. It is evident therefore that when Paul uses the term "the law" in 1 Corinthians 15 that his consistent use of the term should guide our understanding. Paul has not changed subjects. Is it possible to define the Old Covenant as the strength of sin? Now if the Old Law was a (ministration of death), what would deliverance change from that death be? Would it be life from the dead? Allowing the Bible to define the change as deliverance from sin, (separation from God) the Old Covenant of Death to the New Covenant of Life, in Christ we understand Paul's New Testament language of change in (1 Corinthians 15:51-55) 1 Pet. 1:23, would that not be a change from corruptibility to incorruptibility? The apostle Paul says those who were turning to Christ from that Old Covenant were in fact "being changed or transformed (present tense) into the same image (greek eikona) from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:18) What image were they being transformed into? It was the glory of the Lord! The change or transition from the Old Covenant to the New was a transformation into the image of Christ Paul is plainly dealing with the same issue as Jesus, life and death. Paul strongly believed that the transformation from death, under the Old Covenant to life in Christ was a change from death to life. The subject of this change was the two covenant aeons." (ages,) Paul has not changed subjects; he is still focused on his singular desire "the change or resurrection from, literally "out from the dead." Our modern view today denies the relationship of the Old Covenant to death and life ó spiritual life. It fails to take into consideration that man stands before God in relationship to Covenant. To live under a Ministration of Death was to be a body of death, Rom. 7:24; 8:8-10. (separation from God) To be delivered from that ministration of death was to be changed into a new ministration or covenant of life. This is the Biblical concept of the change in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55. To put it another way, since the Old Law was the Ministration of Death and the New Law of Christ is the Law of Life, the change became a reality with the full establishment of Christ's New Covenant. The first century saints were in a "already but not yet" aspect to of the change. This meant that there was a time of transition between the Old Covenant of the Law and the New Covenant a time when those coming out from that Old Law were coming into life. When that Old Covenant of Death was completely taken away, this is called the resurrection. This is the Biblical concept of resurrection. "Christ is the end of the law to those who believe," Rom. 10:4. But the Law would pass when fulfilled and the Hebrew writer says it was at that time growing old and was ready to vanish away, Hebrews 8:13. To Paul and his readers this was a futuristic element of the change. As we have seen earlier, the Biblical definition of life and death, in the context is covenants and Jesus' redemptive work, from death caused by sin, i.e. separation from God. Since Paul's context for the living is change, in (1 Corinthians 15:51-55) that change is life forever in the very presence God under the new covenant. __________________ Many teach these earthly bodies will be turn into something that cannot die. However in Isaiah 65 concerning the New Heaven and Earth people still die and sinners are accursed. Just like today. The change is life that is put in our vessels (bodies) so that we can take hold of eternal life. Here is a verse that can help explain what the scripture is referring to from the Old Testament. Isa 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it. Isa 25:9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation. Life was found in Jesus. Also the tears from the Law were taken away. When they in Jerusalem came from Law to grace. (Glory to Glory). They went from death to life. The temple Killed, brought pain, tears, death, sorrow, etc: Acts 2 Was the new covenant that brought life, joy, peace, salvation, etc: In Jesus name | ||
| Hiddenmanna Registered user Username: Hiddenmanna Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2004 |
Helovesme2, I agree with your post. I've come to believe that the greater between physical and spiritual is the spiritual. It would make more sense that Christ's appearing would be spiritual and manifested in the saints then to be a one man appearing as was when Jesus was manifested in flesh before He was crucified | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1071 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hiddenmanna, I think most of here agree that the Old Covenant was a ministration of death, that mankind literally died spiritually with Adam's sin, and that the New Covenant made spiritual life possible for all who believe. No one could be intimate with God (indwelt by the Holy Spirit) before Jesus died and opened a new a living way to the Father. The Bible does not equate spiritual life (the new birth) with resurrection, however. All who believe are born again, but this miracle happens while we are in our sinful flesh. Yet when we die, Paul says we leave this tent and are with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5) In 1 Thessalonians 14 he says when Jesus returns, "God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him," and verse 16 says, "the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." So God brings those who have slept with him, then resurrects them. Body and spirit are coming together. As far as Isaiah 65 is concerned, that description is not about the new earth. There is no death in the new earth. Rather, Isaiah 65 seems to be describing the millenial kingdom described briefly in Revelation 20 when Jesus comes to earth, raises the righteous dead, and together He and the saints reign over the nations for 1,000 years before the second resurrection. Yes, spiritual life absolutely marks our entrance into the new covenant. Ephesians 1:13-14 describes this indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a "deposit guraranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionóto the praise of His glory." There is more awaiting us--"the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently." (Romans 8:23) The new covenant is "already not yet." We are in it now as born-again Christ-followers, but we are not yet resurrected into our eternal bodies that will not die. Colleen | ||
| Hiddenmanna Registered user Username: Hiddenmanna Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2004 |
Colleen, the resurrection of the dead had to do with the Old Covenant saint being resurrected into Jesus Christ and the New Heaven and Earth in a post mortem state. We who have faith also live with them in the New Heaven and Earth even though we do not physically see them. That does not mean we cannot see them or Jesus in a Spirit form if God so chooses to reveal anything. I just wanted to make that clear. I will attempt to show that the resurrection from the dead according to Romans 8:23 was a corporate one and not a personal one that we believers in Christ shall experience at post mortem. 1 Corinthians 10 Old Testament Examples Do All to Godís Glory 1Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, Here we have an example of two baptisms in the cloud and in the sea. I believe they foreshadowed water baptism by the sea and in the Holy Spirit by the cloud. They were baptized into Moses which foreshadowed being baptized into Christ. Romans 6:3,4 speaks of being resurrected from the dead spiritually and that could by faith experience resurrected life after water baptism. However after the Old Covenant system was destroyed in 70 AD all the Old Testament saints would join them in a corporate resurrection into the New Heaven and Earth with Jesus Christ reigning in His Kingdom that is without observation from the natural eye. Romans 6 2Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Luke 17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, ěThe kingdom of God does not come with observation ; Romans 8 From Suffering to Glory 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. The redemption of the body spoken of in Romans 8:23 was from the body of sin and death that the old covenant brought through the law then in 70 Ad when the old system was destroyed the saints at that time were redeemed from the body of Moses into the glorified body of Jesus Christ. This redemption from the body was a corporate redemption not a personal one. It was from the body of Moses of the Old Covenant into the resurrected body of Jesus Christ in which all true believers are a part of. Jesus is now glorified in the true believers. This is what they hoped for and this is what we now are to look back to and know that we also have been redeemed from the body of sin and death. 1 Corinthians 10 3all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. In 70 Ad when Jesus came in the clouds of Judgment against Jerusalem He used the heathen armies of the world through Rome the superpower nation at that time of the end of the Old Covenant age. Just like in the times of Moses when their bodies were scattered in the wilderness, the nation of Israel was scattered into the earth as a results of the judgment Jesus foretold from the Book of Daniel in Luke 21:20-24 Luke 21 The Destruction of Jerusalem (1)20 ěBut when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 1 Corinthians 10 6Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, ěThe people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.î 8Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Now note above that it is very clear that where it says, upon whom the ends of the ages have come, it is clear that it was speaking to them and not us 2,000 years later. In the Old Covenant they were baptized into Moses, but in the new we are baptized into Christ. The manifestation of the Sons of God occur when the Old system ended at the then known world or age when all the dead of the Old Covenant saints were resurrected from the body of Moses into the glorified body of Christ. Body of Moses was in the old heaven and earth or age. After the old age ended the new age of the new heaven and earth began and the glorified body of Christ was the manifestation of the Sons of God of which all true believers are a part of today. A child could understand this. It takes someone who has been taught from the traditional teachings of men to mess things up as what happened after 70 AD. Before that the thought that Christ would return to the first century Christians was the main view and what they believed. The main problem today is that some people read the scriptures as if they are living in the first century. We have to read it as it was written to them back then and then we should look at history in the light of all scripture been fulfilled when the sign of the coming of the Lord appeared when Jerusalem and the Old Covenant age came to an end. Because Jesus came as He said He would, as a thief in the night, He came and those who saw with the eyes of understanding knew what was going on. But man in his carnal state could not see this and therefore came about the futuristic view that is so dominate in the world today. I challenge anyone today to be as part of an Gideonís army and stand against the flow of traditional teaching and stand for the truth. How much better would the world be today if we did not have a majority futuristic view which denies that Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords. They also deny that we are with Christ and that His Kingdom has come. They do however believe it will happen, but as I have show it already occurred in 70 AD. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 492 Registered: 7-2003 |
Just a note to those who may be wondering about all this. I need to comment on an erroneous assumption that seems to have made above. It is entirely possible to take a moderate or partial preterist view of scriptures such as portions of Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and the book of Revelation without denying plain teachings of scripture such as the bodily resurrection of Christ, a literal future second coming of Christ, and a literal future bodily resurrection for believers. The view that much of the scripture I mentioned dealt with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 is not at all incompatible with core Christian doctrine. Seeing AD70 as a pivotal point in many scriptures that are viewed as eschatological does not of necessity lead to a radical preterist view. I too would lean towards a preterist interpretation of Revelation and Matt. 24, but I deny none of the truths I mentioned above. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1085 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris, I agree. Colleen |
