Bible Study Conditional Immortality

[agua.]

How is it inconclusive? The perfect tense requires it.

Well for one thing using your line of reasoning the prefect tense doesn't require that Jesus is currently in the same flesh he was resurrected in because it may imply the result of the coming was, and still is, ongoing. Secondly did you look at this ?

"1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye (εν τουτω γινωσκετε). Either present active indicative or imperative. The test of "the Spirit of God" (το πνευμα του θεου) here alone in this Epistle, save verse 13. With the clamour of voices then and now this is important. The test (εν τουτω, as in 3:19) follows.That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (Ιησουν Χριστον εν σαρκ εληλυθοτα). The correct text (perfect active participle predicate accusative), not the infinitive (εληλυθενα, B Vg). The predicate participle (see Joh 9:22 for predicate accusative with ομολογεω) describes Jesus as already come in the flesh (his actual humanity, not a phantom body as the Docetic Gnostics held). See this same idiom in 2Jo 1:7 with ερχομενον (coming). A like test is proposed by Paul for confessing the deity of Jesus Christ in 1Co 12:3 and for the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus in Ro 10:6-10"

What do you see in the word glory that indicates a change of physical state?

I parallel this with jesus condition before he came to Earth ( before the foundation of the world ). He didn't have a flesh Body then or do you suggest he did ?

Where is Heaven?

I can only say that heaven isn't on Earth because we're told the new Jerusalem comes to Earth out of heaven in Rev 21.

We're not really told what the qualities of the resurrected body are. I'm not sure why you think Heaven is outside of the earth.

Rev 21:1-2 KJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Are you suggesting Heaven is inside our atmosphere and a flesh body can live there ? If this is the case do you suggest Jesus could be currently seen in our atmosphere if we are looking in the right place ?

 

[BigSodaExposer]

I don't find a verse in the bible that teaches us that spirit beings, whether angel or human cease to exist.

I do find from what Jesus taught us that a person continues to exist, whether in comfort or torment after the physical body dies.

JLB

Revelation 2:11 "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."

Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

1 Peter 4:13 "But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy."

John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

 

[JLB]

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

What do you believe this means "born of water" ?

 

[Butch5]

Well for one thing using your line of reasoning the prefect tense doesn't require that Jesus is currently in the same flesh he was resurrected in because it may imply the result of the coming was, and still is, ongoing. Secondly did you look at this ?

"1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye (εν τουτω γινωσκετε). Either present active indicative or imperative. The test of "the Spirit of God" (το πνευμα του θεου) here alone in this Epistle, save verse 13. With the clamour of voices then and now this is important. The test (εν τουτω, as in 3:19) follows.That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (Ιησουν Χριστον εν σαρκ εληλυθοτα). The correct text (perfect active participle predicate accusative), not the infinitive (εληλυθενα, B Vg). The predicate participle (see Joh 9:22 for predicate accusative with ομολογεω) describes Jesus as already come in the flesh (his actual humanity, not a phantom body as the Docetic Gnostics held). See this same idiom in 2Jo 1:7 with ερχομενον (coming). A like test is proposed by Paul for confessing the deity of Jesus Christ in 1Co 12:3 and for the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus in Ro 10:6-10"

I don't understand what you're getting at. The force of the perfect tense is that the result of the event is present at the time of the speaker/writer. John said, whoever confesses that Jesus is come in the flesh. This indicates that the result of His coming in the flesh remains when John wrote. The use of the perfect tense would mean that Jesus came in the flesh and remained in the flesh at least until the time John wrote the epistle. I don't understand why you see this as potential rather than requited by the grammar.

I've read what you posted twice but don't see how is changes anything I've stated.

I parallel this with jesus condition before he came to Earth ( before the foundation of the world ). He didn't have a flesh Body then or do you suggest he did ?

No, I'm not suggesting He had a body before He was born. What I'm suggesting is that He "became" man and I've not seen anything in Scripture that would suggest that He became anything else after that. We're not told of any change that took place after He ascended or after John wrote the epistle. We also know that the angels at the tomb said He would return in the like manner as He ascended. I don't see anything that would suggest He is any different that when He ascended.

I can only say that heaven isn't on Earth because we're told the new Jerusalem comes to Earth out of heaven in Rev 21.



Rev 21:1-2 KJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Are you suggesting Heaven is inside our atmosphere and a flesh body can live there ? If this is the case do you suggest Jesus could be currently seen in our atmosphere if we are looking in the right place ?

Have you considered that Revelation is using figurative language? I would suggest that Jerusalem is not literally going to come out of the sky but rather the New Jerusalem is a reference to the restoration of the current Jerusalem.

18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, And her people a joy.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem, And joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying.
20 "No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD, And their offspring with them.
24 "It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer; And while they are still speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain," Says the LORD. (Isa 65:18-25 NKJ)

God says "I create Jerusalem." That this is speaking of the present Jerusalem can be seen in the statement, "The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her." The vice of weeping is heard in the present Jerusalem. In that day Jerusalem will no longer suffer as it does today.

I 'm suggesting that we usually have concept of Heaven as being some place that is in space, however, I don't know that that is an accurate concept. Consider this passage about Elisha,

11 Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing; and he called his servants, and said unto them, Will ye not shew me which of us is for the king of Israel?
12 And one of his servants said, None, my lord, O king: but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber. {None: Heb. No}
13 And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan.
14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. {great: Heb. heavy}
15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? {the servant: or, the minister}
16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
18 And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the LORD, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. (2Ki 6:11-18 KJV)

It's almost like there is another dimension that we cannot see unless God opens our eyes. I wonder if this is not where Heaven is at this present time. I wonder if this may be revaled in the kingdom, I don't really know but I don't think the New Jerusalem is literally going to come from space.

 

[Butch5]

Here are some other verses with verbs in the perfect tense.

1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
τηρέω tēreō
Tense: Perfect
Voice: Passive
Mood: Participle

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

σῴζω sōzō
Tense: Perfect
Voice: Passive
Mood: Participle

Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
τελέω teleō

Tense: Perfect
Voice: Passive
Mood: Indicative

Thanks Deb.

 

[chessman]

I don't understand what you're getting at. The force of the perfect tense is that the result of the event is present at the time of the speaker/writer. John said, whoever confesses that Jesus is come in the flesh. This indicates that the result of His coming in the flesh remains when John wrote. The use of the perfect tense would mean that Jesus came in the flesh and remained in the flesh at least until the time John wrote the epistle.

Not just John's Epistle but Paul's letters which we know for sure was written after His ascension:

Colossians 2:9
ὅτιἐναὐτῷκατοικεῖπᾶντὸπλήρωματῆςθεότητοςσωματικῶς,
because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,

• κατοικεῖ katoikei
  
  because in him all the fullness of deity
  dwells
  bodily,
  κατοικεῖ katoikei to dwell
  verb, present, active, indicative, third person, singular

And Jesus himself:

John 2:19, 21 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!”​

But he was speaking about the temple of his body. ​

Since His body being rebuilt was His resurrected body, why would He tear it down again at His ascension?

 

[Butch5]

Not just John's Epistle but Paul's letters which we know for sure was written after His ascension:

Colossians 2:9
ὅτιἐναὐτῷκατοικεῖπᾶντὸπλήρωματῆςθεότητοςσωματικῶς,
because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,

• κατοικεῖ katoikei
  
  because in him all the fullness of deity
  dwells
  bodily,
  κατοικεῖ katoikei to dwell
  verb, present, active, indicative, third person, singular

And Jesus himself:

John 2:19, 21 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!”​

But he was speaking about the temple of his body. ​

Since His body being rebuilt was His resurrected body, why would He tear it down again at His ascension?

That's a good point Chessman, thanks. The present tense would indicate a continuous action and Paul wrote that long after Jesus had ascended.

 

[Deborah13]

Not just John's Epistle but Paul's letters which we know for sure was written after His ascension:

Colossians 2:9
ὅτιἐναὐτῷκατοικεῖπᾶντὸπλήρωματῆςθεότητοςσωματικῶς,
because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,

• κατοικεῖ katoikei
  
  because in him all the fullness of deity
  dwells
  bodily,
  κατοικεῖ katoikei to dwell
  verb, present, active, indicative, third person, singular

And Jesus himself:

John 2:19, 21 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!”​

But he was speaking about the temple of his body. ​

Since His body being rebuilt was His resurrected body, why would He tear it down again at His ascension?

Why not?
The tabernacle was torn down when it was moved from place to place. The ark was moved independently from the tabernacle. Then put back in the tabernacle.
Eventually the ark was completely taken away.
I don't think Paul compared the earthly body to the tabernacle for no reason. What was his analogy about?

 

[chessman]

Why not?
The tabernacle was torn down when it was moved from place to place. The ark was moved independently from the tabernacle. Then put back in the tabernacle.
Eventually the ark was completely taken away.
I don't think Paul compared the earthly body to the tabernacle for no reason. What was his analogy about?

To answer your question, IMO his analogy is about showing exactly what he said it was about. That is; what living “in Him” means (then and now) and it definitely involves Christ’s humanity (His human nature). In the span of just a few verses, Paul describes multiple aspects of what it means to be “in Him”. I recommend a read through Col 1 and 2 highlighting the phrase “in Him” and what Paul’s point is. I started to post it and highlight each but I wound up highlight the whole section.

I will not post a long dissertation but simply say that many of these “in Him” themes/statements, in my opinion, explain how Christ is the fulfillment of everything ‘Jewish’ (true Israel that is) including what the Ark and the Tabernacle and the Temple(s), etc. all pointed to. That is, they foreshadowed Christ Himself (The God-Man). Which is why I don’t think you can take the man portion back out (now that He's resurrected) and have the same Christ that originally reconciled us.

I thought you made an excellent point about the Ark moving through the desert to the promised land and the tabernacle/tent being disassembled and reassembled as it moved along that path. I don't disagree with your point. But, guess what? It was a path to somewhere and to Someone (Christ). Each move was toward its goal and its final resting place. IMO, that resting place has found its home in Christ, The God-Man.

He needed to become a man (yet be God) for these reasons. Those reasons have not reverted back now (as the perfect tense and present tense make clear) changed. Those reasons still dwell in Him, fulfilled only as the God-Man. Take away the human nature of Christ (the resurrected one) and your faith no-longer is in Him that needed to be God-Man. I speak against the various cults that teach doctrines against who Jesus was and is (whether it be a cult that removes His humanity between Christmas and Easter or whether it be a cult that removes is Deity between Christimas and Easter). I"m not familiar with any teaching that whould attempt to remove His humanity post Easter, but I guess there are some.

In addition to 2:9 verse I already mentioned; as you read through chapters 1 and 2, pay special attention to this verse:

22 but now you have been reconciled by his physical body through death, to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you remain in the faith, established and steadfast and not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.​

If we are (and we are) reconciled by his physical body through death, then what in the world reconciles us, if Christ no longer has a physical body? Since there is no Temple on Earth, how are we "presented blameless and above reproach" without Christ still being the God-Man, High Priest of all High Priests that ever lived?

That’s why I say it doesn’t make any sense of Paul’s and John’s and Jesus’ own teaching for Christ to have reverted back to His pre-incarnate form upon ascension. Not to mention, that I'm unaware of any Scripture that says Jesus reverted back to his pre-incarnate state post ascension.

 

[Deborah13]

To answer your question, IMO his analogy is about showing exactly what he said it was about. That is; what living “in Him” means (then and now) and it definitely involves Christ’s humanity (His human nature). In the span of just a few verses, Paul describes multiple aspects of what it means to be “in Him”. I recommend a read through Col 1 and 2 highlighting the phrase “in Him” and what Paul’s point is. I started to post it and highlight each but I wound up highlight the whole section.

I will not post a long dissertation but simply say that many of these “in Him” themes/statements, in my opinion, explain how Christ is the fulfillment of everything ‘Jewish’ (true Israel that is) including what the Ark and the Tabernacle and the Temple(s), etc. all pointed to. That is, they foreshadowed Christ Himself (The God-Man). Which is why I don’t think you can take the man portion back out (now that He's resurrected) and have the same Christ that originally reconciled us.

I thought you made an excellent point about the Ark moving through the desert to the promised land and the tabernacle/tent being disassembled and reassembled as it moved along that path. I don't disagree with your point. But, guess what? It was a path to somewhere and to Someone (Christ). Each move was toward its goal and its final resting place. IMO, that resting place has found its home in Christ, The God-Man.

He needed to become a man (yet be God) for these reasons. Those reasons have not reverted back now (as the perfect tense and present tense make clear) changed. Those reasons still dwell in Him, fulfilled only as the God-Man. Take away the human nature of Christ (the resurrected one) and your faith no-longer is in Him that needed to be God-Man. I speak against the various cults that teach doctrines against who Jesus was and is (whether it be a cult that removes His humanity between Christmas and Easter or whether it be a cult that removes is Deity between Christimas and Easter). I"m not familiar with any teaching that whould attempt to remove His humanity post Easter, but I guess there are some.

In addition to 2:9 verse I already mentioned; as you read through chapters 1 and 2, pay special attention to this verse:

22 but now you have been reconciled by his physical body through death, to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you remain in the faith, established and steadfast and not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.​

If we are (and we are) reconciled by his physical body through death, then what in the world reconciles us, if Christ no longer has a physical body? Since there is no Temple on Earth, how are we "presented blameless and above reproach" without Christ still being the God-Man, High Priest of all High Priests that ever lived?

That’s why I say it doesn’t make any sense of Paul’s and John’s and Jesus’ own teaching for Christ to have reverted back to His pre-incarnate form upon ascension. Not to mention, that I'm unaware of any Scripture that says Jesus reverted back to his pre-incarnate state post ascension.

Thank you for your reply. I will read the scriptures as you have suggested and consider the things which you have said.
Oh, and I agree with your conclusion about the tabernacle and the ark if I understood you correctly.

I must say though that I don't believe we are reconciled by His physical body but by His death while in that physical body as God/man.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

 

[agua.]

I don't understand what you're getting at. The force of the perfect tense is that the result of the event is present at the time of the speaker/writer. John said, whoever confesses that Jesus is come in the flesh. This indicates that the result of His coming in the flesh remains when John wrote. The use of the perfect tense would mean that Jesus came in the flesh and remained in the flesh at least until the time John wrote the epistle. I don't understand why you see this as potential rather than requited by the grammar.

I've read what you posted twice but don't see how is changes anything I've stated.

The result of Jesus' coming was more than the resurrected Body though Butch. The results included redemption, ransom sacrifice, fulfilling prophecy, reclaiming birthright etc etc. I don't see how we must insist the resurrected Body must be cemented by this passage. Here's the definition you posted of perfect tense.

The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.”4

Why can't we suggest the flesh coming of Jesus has results that exist in the present time without insisting the resurrected Body is part of this. It seems like a wooden approach to insist this imo.

No, I'm not suggesting He had a body before He was born. What I'm suggesting is that He "became" man and I've not seen anything in Scripture that would suggest that He became anything else after that. We're not told of any change that took place after He ascended or after John wrote the epistle. We also know that the angels at the tomb said He would return in the like manner as He ascended. I don't see anything that would suggest He is any different that when He ascended.

I have another question down below because this is a very new idea to me. Can you accept that the only thing we're told is that we will see Jesus return in His resurrected Body but we aren't told what he will be between ascension and parousia ? Returning in like manner doesn't imply He's currently in the resurrected Body but simply that He will come down from the sky in His resurrected Body.

Have you considered that Revelation is using figurative language? I would suggest that Jerusalem is not literally going to come out of the sky but rather the New Jerusalem is a reference to the restoration of the current Jerusalem.

18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, And her people a joy.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem, And joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying.
20 "No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD, And their offspring with them.
24 "It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer; And while they are still speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain," Says the LORD. (Isa 65:18-25 NKJ)

God says "I create Jerusalem." That this is speaking of the present Jerusalem can be seen in the statement, "The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her." The vice of weeping is heard in the present Jerusalem. In that day Jerusalem will no longer suffer as it does today.

I 'm suggesting that we usually have concept of Heaven as being some place that is in space, however, I don't know that that is an accurate concept. Consider this passage about Elisha,

11 Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing; and he called his servants, and said unto them, Will ye not shew me which of us is for the king of Israel?
12 And one of his servants said, None, my lord, O king: but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber. {None: Heb. No}
13 And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan.
14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. {great: Heb. heavy}
15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? {the servant: or, the minister}
16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
18 And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the LORD, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. (2Ki 6:11-18 KJV)

It's almost like there is another dimension that we cannot see unless God opens our eyes. I wonder if this is not where Heaven is at this present time. I wonder if this may be revaled in the kingdom, I don't really know but I don't think the New Jerusalem is literally going to come from space.

This is interesting Butch and I'll look at it more closely this arvo. To get some idea of where you're going with this do you suggest Jesus is now here on Earth ( or in our atmosphere ) breathing/eating etc. Also do you agree Jesus ascended into the sky and will return from the sky ?

 

[chessman]

I must say though that I don't believe we are reconciled by His physical body but by His death while in that physical body as God/man.

Me either. Which is why I highlighted BOTH Paul saying that it is His physical body and The Gospel (death burial resurrection) that reconcile us. That's the point. Via Christ, you get an inseparable package. God, man, death, burial, resurrection, Ark, High Priest, temple, etc. You can't just strip off His humanity any more than you can His death.

I had a pastor for years that refused to preach anything other than the Easter message on Christmas. He was right.

 

[Butch5]

The result of Jesus' coming was more than the resurrected Body though Butch. The results included redemption, ransom sacrifice, fulfilling prophecy, reclaiming birthright etc etc. I don't see how we must insist the resurrected Body must be cemented by this passage. Here's the definition you posted of perfect tense.

The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.”4

Why can't we suggest the flesh coming of Jesus has results that exist in the present time without insisting the resurrected Body is part of this. It seems like a wooden approach to insist this imo.

Hi Agua,

I agree there are other results of Jesus coming that may continue on, however, the point that John is making is that of the flesh. John was writing his epistle in response to Gnosticism which taught that the Christ was a spirit that came and rested on the man Jesus and that the Christ spirit left Him when He went to the cross. It taught that the flesh was inherently corrupt and incapable of salvation therefore, to be resurrected would simply imprison the body once again in corruptible flesh. John is refuting this teaching that the Christ and Jesus are two different entities and says that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. What he's saying is that the man Jesus "is" the Christ. His use of the perfect tense refutes the Gnositcs by forcing the interpretation that Jesus the Christ remains in the flesh as opposed to the Gnostic teaching that the Christ spirit left the man Jesus as He went to the cross. His point is that the Christ is in the flesh and not a spirit as the Gnositcs taught.

I have another question down below because this is a very new idea to me. Can you accept that the only thing we're told is that we will see Jesus return in His resurrected Body but we aren't told what he will be between ascension and parousia ? Returning in like manner doesn't imply He's currently in the resurrected Body but simply that He will come down from the sky in His resurrected Body.

I agree with what you've said here, however, if He is not in His body then I don't see how he can be a man.

Also I would look at Chessman's post i think he made some very good points.

This is interesting Butch and I'll look at it more closely this arvo. To get some idea of where you're going with this do you suggest Jesus is now here on Earth ( or in our atmosphere ) breathing/eating etc. Also do you agree Jesus ascended into the sky and will return from the sky ?

I don't know, I only know what Scripture says, it says He is seated at the right hand of God, but even that may be figurative. If God is omnipresent how does one get on the right hand side of Him? I think where and what Jesus is doing now is speculation as we aren't really told much

 

[Deborah13]

Me either. Which is why I highlighted BOTH Paul saying that it is His physical body and The Gospel (death burial resurrection) that reconcile us. That's the point. Via Christ, you get an inseparable package. God, man, death, burial, resurrection, Ark, High Priest, temple, etc. You can't just strip off His humanity any more than you can His death.

I had a pastor for years that refused to preach anything other than the Easter message on Christmas. He was right.

If that is your point, I completely agree with you.
I don't know what form He is in, in heaven but He is still the same Messiah who ate and drank with men, who healed the sick, and cast out devils. Who spoke with the woman at the well. The same Messiah who gave His life, shed His blood in pain and humiliation for us, for me.

 

[chessman]

I don't know what form He is in, in heaven but He is still the same Messiah who ate and drank ...

I know what form He is in, in Heaven:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the __?___ Christ Jesus,​

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus,​

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator [is, not was] of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

[chessman]

It was just an observation that I made. I thought it was interesting.

Relative to Luke 16,
I discovered this little fact today.
These are the ONLY occurrences of Jesus using the phrase "by name" in the NT:

John 10:3 For this one the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ​

And the OT usage:

Isaiah 40:25-31 “And to whom you will compare me, and am I equal?” says the holy one. Lift your eyes up on high, and see! Who created these?The one who brings out their host by number.He calls all them by name.Because he is great of power and mighty of power, no man is missing. Why do you say, Jacob,and you speak, Israel,“My way is hidden from Yahweh,and my judgment is passed over by my God?” Have you not known,or have you not heard?Yahweh is the God of eternity,the creator of the ends of the earth! ...
He gives power to the weary,and he increases power for the powerless. Even young people will be faint and grow weary,and the young will stumble, exhausted. But those who wait for Yahweh shall renew their strength.They shall go up with wings like eagles;they shall run and not grow weary;they shall walk and not be faint.​

Oh, and I almost forgot the other NT usage. Any of this sound familiar?

Luke 16:14-15, 19-20 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. And he said to them, “You are the ones who justify themselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts! For what is considered exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. ...
“Now a certain man was rich, and dressed in purple cloth and fine linen, feasting sumptuously every day. And a certain poor man named [literally "by name"] Lazarus, covered with sores, lay at his gate, and was longing to be filled with what fell from the table of the rich man. But even the dogs came and licked his sores. ...
Luke 16:23-25, 31 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes as he was in torment and saw Abraham from a distance, and Lazarus at his side. And he called out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he could dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am suffering pain in this flame!’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you received your good things during your life, and Lazarus likewise bad things. But now he is comforted here, but you are suffering pain. But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone rises from the dead.’”
​

I now think Luke 16 was a reminder to these Pharisees of Is 40!

 

[Butch5]

Relative to Luke 16,
I discovered this little fact today.
These are the ONLY occurrences of Jesus using the phrase "by name" in the NT:

John 10:3 For this one the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ​

And the OT usage:

Isaiah 40:25-31 “And to whom you will compare me, and am I equal?” says the holy one. Lift your eyes up on high, and see! Who created these?The one who brings out their host by number.He calls all them by name.Because he is great of power and mighty of power, no man is missing. Why do you say, Jacob,and you speak, Israel,“My way is hidden from Yahweh,and my judgment is passed over by my God?” Have you not known,or have you not heard?Yahweh is the God of eternity,the creator of the ends of the earth! ...
He gives power to the weary,and he increases power for the powerless. Even young people will be faint and grow weary,and the young will stumble, exhausted. But those who wait for Yahweh shall renew their strength.They shall go up with wings like eagles;they shall run and not grow weary;they shall walk and not be faint.​

Oh, and I almost forgot the other NT usage. Any of this sound familiar?

Luke 16:14-15, 19-20 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. And he said to them, “You are the ones who justify themselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts! For what is considered exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. ...
“Now a certain man was rich, and dressed in purple cloth and fine linen, feasting sumptuously every day. And a certain poor man named [literally "by name"] Lazarus, covered with sores, lay at his gate, and was longing to be filled with what fell from the table of the rich man. But even the dogs came and licked his sores. ...
Luke 16:23-25, 31 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes as he was in torment and saw Abraham from a distance, and Lazarus at his side. And he called out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he could dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am suffering pain in this flame!’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you received your good things during your life, and Lazarus likewise bad things. But now he is comforted here, but you are suffering pain. But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone rises from the dead.’”
​

I now think Luke 16 was a reminder to these Pharisees of Is 40!

Hi Chessman,

Thanks for that. I knew Jesus had drawn on several OT passages in the parable but hadn't seen this. I do believe the Pharisees would be reminded of these OT passages.

 

[Butch5]

I know what form He is in, in Heaven:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the __?___ Christ Jesus,​

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus,​

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator [is, not was] of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Thanks for that.

 

[agua.]

Hi Agua,

I agree there are other results of Jesus coming that may continue on, however, the point that John is making is that of the flesh. John was writing his epistle in response to Gnosticism which taught that the Christ was a spirit that came and rested on the man Jesus and that the Christ spirit left Him when He went to the cross. It taught that the flesh was inherently corrupt and incapable of salvation therefore, to be resurrected would simply imprison the body once again in corruptible flesh. John is refuting this teaching that the Christ and Jesus are two different entities and says that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. What he's saying is that the man Jesus "is" the Christ. His use of the perfect tense refutes the Gnositcs by forcing the interpretation that Jesus the Christ remains in the flesh as opposed to the Gnostic teaching that the Christ spirit left the man Jesus as He went to the cross. His point is that the Christ is in the flesh and not a spirit as the Gnositcs taught.

Ok Butch. I still don't see why what Jesus was at the Cross and after resurrection must reflect on what He is now. The refutation for the Gnostics was that Jesus walked in the flesh, died and rose again in the flesh which is what happened. I don't see why His bodily condition after ascention reflects on this because we know He came from a Spirit condition pre incarnate to a flesh position. I think the Gnostic argument was refuted by what Jesus did here on Earth not after He ascended. imo

I agree with what you've said here, however, if He is not in His body then I don't see how he can be a man.

Also I would look at Chessman's post i think he made some very good points.

The thing is Butch I see that Jesus did everything that was required for reconciling man to God while he was a man. Whatever form He has now doesn't change that in the same way that the form He had pre incarnation doesn't change it. I just read some of Chessman's points and this one certainly has stuick with me.

I know what form He is in, in Heaven:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the __?___ Christ Jesus,​

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus,​

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator [is, not was] of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

I'm still not convinced because the reconciliation took place fully while Jesus was a man and His sacrifice is all encompassing from that day forward. ie. all mediation has been accomplished as Calvary. I'm looking at this more closely because I must admit the argument is getting stronger for your position in my mind.

I don't know, I only know what Scripture says, it says He is seated at the right hand of God, but even that may be figurative. If God is omnipresent how does one get on the right hand side of Him? I think where and what Jesus is doing now is speculation as we aren't really told much

The reason I ask is because if we suggest Jesus is currently in his resurrected Body then we must also assume He eats etc atm ?

 

[chessman]

... we know He came from a Spirit condition pre incarnate to a flesh position.

Then died, then to a glorified flesh position, then ascended, then seated, then ____chapter/verse___?

...

The reason I ask is because if we suggest Jesus is currently in his resurrected Body then we must also assume He eats etc ?

I admit, the question of what Jesus eats now that He's ascended has never crossed my mind. But His continued position as the God-Man and 2nd Adam and High Priest has.

​