|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 15, 2009 17:30:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 15, 2009 17:38:46 GMT -5
Thanks Ted, I'm going to see if I can get caught up on the thread and then maybe contribute. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Jan 15, 2009 22:13:18 GMT -5
Thank, Mellontes! I look forward to checking it out (hopefully, with Allyn's contribution).  Lady Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 16, 2009 0:01:06 GMT -5
I guess that one of the reasons I am requesting this is part and parcel to do with a post (The Reign of God) which was moved from the eschatology section to the preterist section with no reason. There was no preterist content in my thread, yet it was moved to the preterist section!
I fully plan to bring my preterist answers to threads outside of the Preterism Section where such a position answers the original posters topic. If the moderators want to bring those threads over into the preterist section just because "known predators, I mean preterists frequented the thread, they are more than welcome to do so. In that way, those who normally wouldn't even know about the preterist section (I would have no clue what that meant just 3 years ago), would now be thrown into the world of preterism and see many posts concerning the end-times.
Perhaps this may lead to permanent suspension, but this is a battle I am willing to wage. We have no idea how many are lurking and gaining knowledge. Let us always treat the posts as if we are speaking to someone who just watches with eagerness.
Blessings!
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 16, 2009 9:01:22 GMT -5
For what its worth, I posted to the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 16, 2009 9:30:36 GMT -5
For what its worth, I posted to the thread. And I just commented... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 16, 2009 9:33:21 GMT -5
I'm only about halfway through the thread, so haven't reached your posts yet. I must say the discussion has been quite interesting.... and civil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 16, 2009 9:36:43 GMT -5
For what its worth, I posted to the thread. And I just commented... Its fun to discuss, but it still boils down to faith. Even today we can only have faith in most any historical facts concerning their truth. Unless one is born of the word and the spirit, one can never have faith in Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 16, 2009 10:20:59 GMT -5
Did Jesus appear to Paul on the road to Damascus in a physical body of flesh? I certainly never thought so.
I bring this up because of this scripture that was quoted in a post over on that thread this morning:
Now,brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and one which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor. 15:1-8).
Paul includes Jesus' appearance to him as proof of his resurrection, yet that proof was not in a physical body.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 16, 2009 10:38:42 GMT -5
Did Jesus appear to Paul on the road to Damascus in a physical body of flesh? I certainly never thought so. I bring this up because of this scripture that was quoted in a post over on that thread this morning: Now,brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and one which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor. 15:1-8). Paul includes Jesus' appearance to him as proof of his resurrection, yet that proof was not in a physical body. Bev Flesh as we know it, I don't believe so. There seems to be enough evidence saying that His resurrected body was of a flesh which was glorified and made known in different ways such as invisible to visible. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 16, 2009 11:46:39 GMT -5
Did Jesus appear to Paul on the road to Damascus in a physical body of flesh? I certainly never thought so. I bring this up because of this scripture that was quoted in a post over on that thread this morning: Now,brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and one which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor. 15:1-8). Paul includes Jesus' appearance to him as proof of his resurrection, yet that proof was not in a physical body. Bev Good Point! I believe God is a Spirit. Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus is Spirit as well. His 33-34 years on earth were nothing compared to His existence in eternity. When He was here he was made in the likeness of mankind. Romans 8:3 and Philippians 2:7 say that he was made in the LIKENESS of flesh/man. This is not IDENTICAL. This was only His manifestation to us. How He is to be seen in the heavenly realm is not exactly revealed. But when I shall see him, I shall be like Him - and He is Spirit. I like what Acts 14:11 said. Even the Athenians attributed the possibilty that their gods would come down in the "likeness" of men as well. And I just noticed Romans 6:5 and how powerful it is to the nature of the resurrection, IMHO. Romans 6:5 - For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:Paul is telling his audience (rhetorically) that they HAD BEEN planted together in the likeness of his death, yet they were still physically alive! If Christ's death was spiritual in nature then what Paul said could easily be true, because they also had suffered the same separation from God due to Adam. Paul also goes on to say that their resurrection would be like Christ's, and since Christ's had to be spiritual in nature (because they were still alive), then so should their resurrection be spiritual too. This is the only way that Jesus could say that Martha would never die and be telling the truth, because we all know (or believe) that Martha died a physical death. If Christ's resurrection has anything to do with the physical bodily nature, and if Christ is the first fruits of that resurrection, then how come the resurrection of Lazarus (a physical resurrection) supercede the firstfruits. Shouldn't Lazarus have been the first fruits? Or what about those that came out of the graves at Calvary, maybe they should have been the first fruits. When Jesus told that one thief on the cross, "Today thou shalt be with Me in paradise," was he referring to Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb or the resting place of the dead - sheol/hades/hell? To me, this destroys the concept of a bodily resurrection, and possibly any kind of shell - spiritual or otherwise. IMHO Blessings! |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 16, 2009 12:20:52 GMT -5
Am I the only one who saw a denial of the substitutionary atonement of Christ in Mellontes post?
We partake of His death and His life in a spirtual but real sense. We already have a part in Adam's death both spiritually and physically. Christ's physical death was sufficient to pay the penalty for our sin. His sacrifice was accepted as an offering for sin. By ending His physical sinless life His death provided the blood that supercedes anything that the sacrifice of an innocent animal could provide. Why? Because His life which is in His blood never dissipates because it is eternal in its substance/ quality.
It was BECAUSE Christ possessed eternal life in spirit that His physical death could accomplish what our death could not. Had He died spiritually as well as physically - He would have been as dead as Adam and would not have been able to bring Himself back to life either physically or spiritually.
We partake in His death because it is NOT like Adam's - nor is His life. God in human form remember? How can He give to us what He Himself "lost" if His death was spiritual too? It makes no sense for why the Holy Spirit must quicken us now unless that rebirth in Spirit makes us like Him so that when we die in body we continue to live in Spirit - like He did/does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 16, 2009 12:23:46 GMT -5
Yes I believe that both Jesus and us have a spiritual in nature resurrection, but I also think it important to take into account that the bodily resurrection of Christ was required in order that He would be vindicated as a true prophet. Destroy this body and in three days I will raise it. It had to be so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 16, 2009 12:44:44 GMT -5
Well, most of you know my thoughts on your recent comments. Mixing truth with myth. I choose to stay out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 16, 2009 13:40:35 GMT -5
Yes I believe that both Jesus and us have a spiritual in nature resurrection, but I also think it important to take into account that the bodily resurrection of Christ was required in order that He would be vindicated as a true prophet. Destroy this body and in three days I will raise it. It had to be so. I will combine Mograce2U's post in here as well. I do not deny the atonement, but the physical, bodily resurrection, I do. But I do not deny the resurrection of Jesus...See below as to why. My previous post went into it as well. I'd have to disagree slightly with Allyn here... John 2:19-2119 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. It was the TEMPLE of the body. That is a large difference than just being the physical body. Could it be that the temple referred to his spirit or soul? Do we not end up being lively stones in His temple? Are we in his FLESHLY body? I also find it interesting that Jesus said I will raise the temple. Yet the scripture says that GOD raised Jesus (Acts 2:31) and it wasn't his physical body that was raised, because it lay dormant in the tomb waiting for the SPIRITUAL resurrection to take place. Does God physically dwell in us? Yet we are in the body of Christ. We have got to put away our traditions of the penalty for sin being BOTH spiritual and physical in nature. It has been said that physical death became a "process," that man "started dying" and that he would eventually completely die physically. Redemption from sin is not a process either, in that we have to wait for our physical shell to be shed. The DAY that Adam died (separation from God - one of the "deaths" mentioned in the NT) is similar to its cure. The DAY that we get saved is the DAY we are redeemed - and I mean fully redeemed. It is not a two-part process. That would mean that you really don't know if you are redeemed until you die and then it is too late to correct the problem! The lesson about Martha continues to go unheeded. May I suggest a bit of controversial reading: www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=470:was-jesus-born-again&catid=44:new-covenant&Itemid=61 I also wrote a poem and that site has posted it for some time now: www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=529:poem-freedom&catid=45:poems-of-interest&Itemid=61Blessings! |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2009 23:40:29 GMT -5
There is some talk among preterists that spiritual death means the death of the spirit. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!
Spiritual death is separation from God's presence who is Spirit.
Spiritual life is being put back into that presence.
The pre-parousia believers of the NT received that promise by faith. The consumation of that promise became fact at the Lord's coming in 70 AD to destroy old covenant Judaism and the priestly system. Since Jesus was of the tribe of Judah he could not be a priest on earth. But now that he had entered the heavenly realm he could be both priest and king (and was).
Have you ever wondered what it meant to endure to the end? The end of what? Time? End of the old covenant? End of the church age which has no end? What?
As for us getting any kind of body (spiritual or physical), maybe a reading of 2 Cor 3 (keeping in mind the "glory" part) with 1 Corinthians 15 will help.
Flesh and blood represented the old covenant.
Spirit represented the new covenant.
The body of death represented old covenant.
The body of Christ represented the new covenant.
Try reading 1 Corinthians 15 with all this in mind. Scripture does not allow for a defense of a separate body for the believer at death - spiritual or otherwise. It has little to do with individual believers...
Peace and Love... and fading away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 18, 2009 21:34:34 GMT -5
... Since Jesus was of the tribe of Judah he could not be a priest on earth. That was a good post, but I have a question about the above part of it. The Levitical priesthood was a requirement under the old covenant; therefore, the requirement that a priest would have to be of the tribe of Levi would not even apply under the new covenant, unless it was specifically stated as part of that covenant, right? So I think the more correct statement might be, "Since Jesus was of the tribe of Judah he could not be a priest under the old covenant." Of course -- and this is probably where you were coming from -- the old covenant is "earthy" and the new covenant is spiritual, so by the very nature of the covenants, you could say that Jesus (or anyone) could not be a new covenant priest "on earth." Though Peter writes that we are "living stones" and a "royal priesthood" while yet on earth. |
|
