|
|
Post by didymus on Aug 19, 2010 20:23:41 GMT -5
This seems to be a problem with preterism. If it is taught that we are in the kingdom, where there are no tears, no pain, etc., then the question is, if indeed we are in that kingdom now, why is there still pain, why are there still tears? Revelation 21.1-4 states: - NKJV - Biblegateway.com I was asked about this in another thread, and it was suggested that another thread be started. Since I am the one that brought the subject up, I thought I should answer this. The Scripture above is what I was referring to. I also had an old hymn of the church in mind called, "No Tears In Heaven." This is my explanation, for what it's worth. I don't see this as a problem for preterism at all. Futurists will say, "ah, this proves that preterism is a false doctrine because we still do have tears and pain, etc. But, tears and pain are because of a corrupt flesh, not a renewed spirit in Christ. As long as we are in this corrupt flesh, we will have all the consequences thereof. The apostle Paul stated in I Corinthians 2.14, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. And, in Romans 7, he speaks of the war between the flesh and the spirit. It is hard for those of us who are yet in the flesh to not be effected by it. The flesh is corrupt, and those of us who are in Christ have put on incorruption. The corrupt and the incorrupt are at work in the same body. Hence, the war between the corrupt and the incorrupt. But, when we come to the end of our life in the flesh, we will put off the corruption, and all that will be left will be incorruption, at least for those of us that are in Christ, for it is Christ that is incorrupt. So with the flesh we serve the corrupt, but the inner man serves the incorrupt, which is Christ. It is through Christ that we become a new creature, and all things become new, but not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. When we put off the flesh, there will be no tears, for He will wipe away all our tears. There will be no pain, for we will not even have toes that we can stubb. The flesh will go back to the dust of the earth, but the spirit will go back to He who gave it. And those in Christ will have eternal life in the Spirit. Being in the flesh is very limiting. I cannot explain this any further.  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Aug 19, 2010 20:51:35 GMT -5
You did a lot better than I could in explaining this. I know deep down inside what it means to be in the kingdom but I have not been able to put it to words. Not very well anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Aug 20, 2010 8:53:53 GMT -5
Agreed, that was said pretty well. Being in the flesh is quite limiting. Paul even said the the weakness of the law itself was the flesh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Aug 20, 2010 23:08:28 GMT -5
I need to disagree. ... The apostle Paul stated in I Corinthians 2.14, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I don't believe that verse is speaking of someone in Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 NASB (12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, (13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (14) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. So Paul writes that they know the things freely given by God and speaks of them. Did Paul no longer have a "natural man" since he accepts the things of God? They certainly are not foolishness to him. And I certainly hope he understands them, since he says he knows them and speaks of them. And, in Romans 7, he speaks of the war between the flesh and the spirit. It is hard for those of us who are yet in the flesh to not be effected by it. The flesh is corrupt, and those of us who are in Christ have put on incorruption. The corrupt and the incorrupt are at work in the same body. Hence, the war between the corrupt and the incorrupt. But, when we come to the end of our life in the flesh, we will put off the corruption, and all that will be left will be incorruption, at least for those of us that are in Christ, for it is Christ that is incorrupt. So with the flesh we serve the corrupt, but the inner man serves the incorrupt, which is Christ. In Romans 7, Paul is talking about his struggle with sin BEFORE he became a Christian. It describes someone who is a slave to sin. That's why at the end of it he asks, "Who will set me free from the body of this death?" Then supplies the answer, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" And why in the next chapter he says, "if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Romans 8:13 NASB) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; (Romans 6:6 NASB) Remember what Paul wrote in Romans 7:25? "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" That was the ANSWER to his depiction of having been a slave to sin. He also stated it in the previous chapter: But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:17-18 NASB) Also, don't overlook the context. Before he launches into this description of being a slave to sin, he is talking about being under the Law. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;... For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. (Romans 7:9-10, 14 NASB) A person in Christ is NOT sold into bondage to sin!If you believe you are still in bondage to sin, you need to turn to the Lord so that he can set you free. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (Romans 6:22 NASB) |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Aug 21, 2010 1:08:07 GMT -5
Bev, There is just one statement I want to address here, since it is the premise for the rest of your post. You said: Romans 7.14-25, in the NASB states: - thanks to Biblegateway.com Verse 14, Paul said, "but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin." Notice the words, "I am." Is that present tense of past tense? Verse 15, "For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate." Once again, the words emboldened indicate present tense. And that it is the case from verse 14-25. Again, in verse 24, "Wretched man that I am..." He does not say, "I was of flesh, sold into bondage to sin." He says, "I am." In verse 24, he does not say, "Wretched man that I was..." He says, "Wretched man that I am..." All present tense. So what he was describing was true at the time he wrote it, not before he wrote it. Now let's look at the crux of the matter, in verse 23, "but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members." Paul is describing an inner conflict that he was going through at the time he wrote this letter to the church at Rome. You say that all this was before he was a Christian. So then, did he write this letter to Rome before he was a Christian? Paul definitely had inner struggles as a Christian. Philippians 1.21-24 states: I have had this inner struggle myself many times in my Christian life. In fact, I just went through one of those times. And, I also struggle with sin. Does that mean I am not a Christian? Then for me, the cross of Christ was in vain. But, I put my trust in Him, not in my own weaknesses, which is in the flesh. So my flesh is also sold unto sin, for I know I should not eat hot dogs, but I do. I love, that is my flesh, loves hot dogs. But, for health reasons I should not eat them. But, my salvation is not based on what I do or do not eat, it is based on the cross of Christ. Every time I go to the store, and get near the deli, I just can't help myself, I got to have those Hippy hot dogs. But there are times I just stand there, struggling with myself whether or not to buy them. Finally, my flesh says, "you have to die of something, why not enjoy yourself along the way." But, with my mind, I know that if I am going to pump all that fat and grease - the cholesterol - into my body, I should at least take fish oil supplements, and put garlic powder on the hot dogs. So, with the flesh I serve an appetite for hot dogs, but with my mind I serve good health standards. What happens when we become a Christian, is our flesh discarded? No, we still have to contend with it, as I just pointed out. I could go into many other ways I contend with my flesh, but I think the point is made.  - ever notice this guy is reading the book backwards |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Aug 21, 2010 18:47:05 GMT -5
I believe Paul speaks in the present tense because it is an illustration. Another explanation I've read is that Paul is personifying the "sinful nature" much like Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom. In Romans 8:13, Paul wrote: "for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." So how can Romans 7:19 possibly be Paul describing his present state? * Romans 7:19 NASB (19) For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. Practicing evil is living according to the flesh. In Romans 8:13, Paul says that if you live according to the flesh, you must die. Paul is not a hypocrite; therefore, Romans 7:14-24 must be describing his life before Christ. If Paul was really describing himself as a Christian in Romans 7, how could he instruct the Corinthian believers to imitate him? * 1 Corinthians 4:16-17 NASB (16) Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. (17) For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church. In Romans 7:19,21, Paul says he practices evil and that evil is present in him. But he urges the Corinthians to imitate him?! No, I don't think he was describing himself as a Christian. He was describing the conflict of someone still under the Law and without Christ. In Christ, there is victory over sin. Christians who intentionally sin, choose to. They need to stop making excuses and REPENT. Otherwise, the judgment may not go so well for them when they stand before Christ. And, no, I never noticed he was reading the book backwards! Maybe he's just looking up something. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Aug 23, 2010 10:24:55 GMT -5
This came to me this morning before I even got out of bed. I think this discussion got derailed right from the git-go. As soon as we started talking about sin, we left the realm of that which we have no control over; namely, our innate sense of feeling sadness and pain.
Tom, I agree that we still have that, especially while in our earthly body. If we don't feel those things, how can we have compassion for others?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 14:14:35 GMT -5
Flesh has nothing to do with human tissue. It is a referrant to the old covenant, as in "Israel after the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18).
Flesh and spirit are contrasted all the time. It is OC versus NC.
Jesus being born in the "flesh" has nothing to do with human skin.
Both the natural body and the spiritual body are PHYSICAL bodies. They are in reference to the OC body versus the new covenant body...
It is all about covenant. The entire NT is a transition from the old to the new..
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 10, 2011 14:21:04 GMT -5
Flesh has nothing to do with human tissue. It is a referrant to the old covenant, as in "Israel after the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18). Flesh and spirit are contrasted all the time. It is OC versus NC. Jesus being born in the "flesh" has nothing to do with human skin. Both the natural body and the spiritual body are PHYSICAL bodies. They are in reference to the OC body versus the new covenant body... It is all about covenant. The entire NT is a transition from the old to the new.. Ted, I am not saying that you are wrong in this but you seem so sure that it makes me ask how you are so sure? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 14:41:48 GMT -5
Ted, I am not saying that you are wrong in this but you seem so sure that it makes me ask how you are so sure? Wow! That is like the second hardest question I have ever been asked... It is a long story but for the most part it is based upon the corporate body resurection view (CBV) and in line with the two covenants. Remember how you believe that Israel is the basis for the resurrection? Well, that is in line with the corporate resurrection view and, in my opinion, opposed to the IBD (individual body at death) view... Mainly, my view about the "flesh" being associated with OC terminology is based on a personal examination of every usage of "flesh" in the NT. Understand also that the flesh under consideration is the "flesh" in contexts related to Israel, redemption, salvation, covenant, spirit, and things like that. There most certainly are references to "flesh" being used simply as referring to the human body, but not in those contexts. This is vital to understand. Maybe one day I'll write a book on it... The corporate body view was one of the most difficult things for me to grasp as a preterist. On a scale of difficulty, 1 being the lowest and 10 the most difficult, then CBV is 10, basic preterism is 5, and Covenant Creation is 2... I know that probably doesn't help much. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 10, 2011 14:49:13 GMT -5
Ted, I am not saying that you are wrong in this but you seem so sure that it makes me ask how you are so sure? Wow! That is like the second hardest question I have ever been asked... It is a long story but for the most part it is based upon the corporate body resurection view (CBV) and in line with the two covenants. Remember how you believe that Israel is the basis for the resurrection? Well, that is in line with the corporate resurrection view and, in my opinion, opposed to the IBD (individual body at death) view... Mainly, my view about the "flesh" being associated with OC terminology is based on a personal examination of every usage of "flesh" in the NT. Understand also that the flesh under consideration is the "flesh" in contexts related to Israel, redemption, salvation, covenant, spirit, and things like that. There most certainly are references to "flesh" being used simply as referring to the human body, but not in those contexts. This is vital to understand. Maybe one day I'll write a book on it... The corporate body view was one of the most difficult things for me to grasp as a preterist. On a scale of difficulty, 1 being the lowest and 10 the most difficult, then CBV is 10, basic preterism is 5, and Covenant Creation is 2... I know that probably doesn't help much. I still am having troubles grasping it and now more so in accordance with the resurrection view of Israel I hold to. My view on that is that it applies only to Israel only because it was promised to Israel regardless of Israel's faith. The resurrection of Israel was certainly corporate in that all participated in it but it was also a divided resurrection where in which some were raised to eternal life and some to condemnation. I don't think you are suggesting that in your view. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 15:41:24 GMT -5
I still am having troubles grasping it and now more so in accordance with the resurrection view of Israel I hold to. My view on that is that it applies only to Israel only because it was promised to Israel regardless of Israel's faith. The resurrection of Israel was certainly corporate in that all participated in it but it was also a divided resurrection where in which some were raised to eternal life and some to condemnation. I don't think you are suggesting that in your view. I have bolded and underlined something I need clarification on. I am thinking that you are saying that resurrection in this instance is all being brought our of "somewhere" to be judged. I guess that would fit my my view somewhat although I would need clarification on what "condemnation" means to you. I have no problems for faithful Israel being resurrected to life. I am trying to grasp the aspect of the other unfaithful Israel. In the NT, I guess I would liken it to OC Jews being saved (raised to Life and brought into the NC church) and OC Jews who rejected (condemnation). The Gentiles are able to partake of the same promise once Israel has had their say (received the promise) - hence the parousia in 70 AD... I have seen the destruction of Jerusalem as the lake of fire for some time now. And since I don't believe man was created immortal in the first place, and since I believe that immortality comes only by way of the Gospel, people TODAY who don't get saved are separated from God for all eternity because they just cease to exist. To me, that is punishment enough. Living a mere 70 or 80 years and missing out on eternity is too much to even think about... This was the question that I had asked Roo in regard to full preterism and Reformed having "inconsistencies." As far as I know, and I can take correction on this, Roo believes in eternal conscious torment forever for unbelievers in a geographical lake of fire. The resurrection is such a vast topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 10, 2011 16:20:06 GMT -5
I have bolded and underlined something I need clarification on. I am thinking that you are saying that resurrection in this instance is all being brought our of "somewhere" to be judged. I guess that would fit my my view somewhat although I would need clarification on what "condemnation" means to you. I have no problems for faithful Israel being resurrected to life. I am trying to grasp the aspect of the other unfaithful Israel. In Israel's resurrection all who were under the Law of Moses were raised at the end of the age. They were brought out of Hades. Hades had two compartments. One compartment was what Jesus called the boosom of Abraham. The other compartment was across a vast gulf unapproachable by those on either side. Daniel was told that many of the dead would be raised and out of the many, some to condemnation and some to eternal life. I believe the judgment for those of Israel was accomplished by the fact that some were on one side of the great gulf at rest and the other side was torture. We see this in the story of the rich man and Lazuras. In the NT, I guess I would liken it to OC Jews being saved (raised to Life and brought into the NC church) and OC Jews who rejected (condemnation). The Gentiles are able to partake of the same promise once Israel has had their say (received the promise) - hence the parousia in 70 AD... I guess that would be a fair comparrison. I believe that since it is appointed for a person to die once and then the judgment then all people from the gospel time forward will be judged immediately upon death but the difference between old covenant people and new covenant times is that there is no longer a holding place and that when one dies outside of Christ they go immediately to destruction while those in Christ move into the realm of eternal life. I have seen the destruction of Jerusalem as the lake of fire for some time now. And since I don't believe man was created immortal in the first place, and since I believe that immortality comes only by way of the Gospel, people TODAY who don't get saved are separated from God for all eternity because they just cease to exist. To me, that is punishment enough. Living a mere 70 or 80 years and missing out on eternity is too much to even think about... I see the destruction of Jerusalem as a necessary event in order to seal against any further hope of a rebounding Jewish system. Of course it is also punishment for a people who had already pledged their allegiance to to the Beast. It would be naive of me to think these were the only purposeful aspects of the destruction. This was the question that I had asked Roo in regard to full preterism and Reformed having "inconsistencies." As far as I know, and I can take correction on this, Roo believes in eternal conscious torment forever for unbelievers in a geographical lake of fire. Conscious torment had its place one time for those awaiting the resurrection but now that hades is cast into the lake of fire and in fact empty I believe all torment is over and those who are unsaved are destroyed as if they never once had life. The resurrection is such a vast topic. Sure is. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 17:18:31 GMT -5
I'm not completely sold on the compartmentalization and torture aspect of Luke 16...
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 10, 2011 17:24:58 GMT -5
I'm not completely sold on the compartmentalization and torture aspect of Luke 16... You'll need to explain your reason why. Jesus made the compartment scenerio. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 18:16:52 GMT -5
You'll need to explain your reason why. Jesus made the compartment scenerio. Yeah, I know. But how do you give a full explanation on something you are not completely sold. I guess I find it strange that this is the only place that speaks of this kind of thing... Perhaps it is based upon a Jewish fable or something like that? I am NOT saying that Jesus was purporting fables... Don't hold your breath on this one... |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 19:02:04 GMT -5
I think there is too much traditional thinking going on in Luke 16:19-31...
For instance, where do we get the idea that "Abraham's bosom" is representative of hades? The only two verses that I am aware of are:
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Lazarus is carried off by angel's into Abraham's bosom. Yet the rich man sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. If the rich man and Lazarus are to be taken as a literal individuals, then why not Abraham? (not saying that you aren't) I see no need to name the place "Abraham's bosom" just because Abraham was there. To be a little facetious here, was Lazarus piled up 10 miles high on Abraham's bosom as would (perhaps) all the other faithful would be? Why not name it "Noah's Nature" or Abel's Arcade" or Seth's Stowaways"?
The literature here is similar to other literature that is NOT taken literally. But like I said I am not sold on it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 10, 2011 19:16:16 GMT -5
Flesh has nothing to do with human tissue. It is a referrant to the old covenant, as in "Israel after the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18). Flesh and spirit are contrasted all the time. It is OC versus NC. Jesus being born in the "flesh" has nothing to do with human skin. ... So when John wrote that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2), he was speaking of his arrival under the OC, the same way that Paul wrote that Jesus was "born under the Law" (Galatians 4:4)? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 10, 2011 19:20:30 GMT -5
I think there is too much traditional thinking going on in Luke 16:19-31... For instance, where do we get the idea that "Abraham's bosom" is representative of hades? The only two verses that I am aware of are: Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Lazarus is carried off by angel's into Abraham's bosom. Yet the rich man sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. If the rich man and Lazarus are to be taken as a literal individuals, then why not Abraham? (not saying that you aren't) I see no need to name the place "Abraham's bosom" just because Abraham was there. To be a little facetious here, was Lazarus piled up 10 miles high on Abraham's bosom as would (perhaps) all the other faithful would be? Why not name it "Noah's Nature" or Abel's Arcade" or Seth's Stowaways"? The literature here is similar to other literature that is NOT taken literally. But like I said I am not sold on it... Abraham's boosom deals me no problems. I have always understood it to mean the good guys side of the aisle even before I understood what I now understand about the story. Jesus' teaching is on the back of an already believed real place. The teaching though is not about the place but rather what is faith and dependance. The rich man depended upon himself and Lazuras depended upon God's provisions in the bankruptcy of his own personal condition. It is incidental that Hades is the point of mutual experience for the two men. The deeper story within the story is the brothers of the rich man who are also in danger of the rich man's fate and the fact that a stone heart cannot be changed by any amount of preaching. The story adds to the concept that hades is the place of the dead. It is embellished in Daniel and other places as being a place of sleep but it is unavoidable that there are two kinds of people in the same place before the resurrection of the dead, they being the saved and the condemned. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 19:55:40 GMT -5
At the risk of being mislabelled, I found this site which goes into things which I "kind of" like. www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/p_lazarus.htmDISCLAIMER: I, IN NO WAY, LEND SUPPORT TO THIS WEBISTE FOR THEIR BELIEFS OR LACK OF BELIEF THEREOF. THIS LINK IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 20:13:30 GMT -5
So when John wrote that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2), he was speaking of his arrival under the OC, the same way that Paul wrote that Jesus was "born under the Law" (Galatians 4:4)? I don't suppose you would let me answer you one way and answer someone else in another way, would you? No, I suppose not...(grin) Yes, I believe that passage is NOT speaking about human tissue. Let the attacks begin! (but not by you) (more grinning) I like the verses following, too: 1 John 4:4-5 - Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. All instances of the world are "kosmos" (Strongs's 2889). And if people know anything about me, it is the fact that I believe that when the "world" is mentioned in either of its forms (aion, oikumene, or kosmos) it is NOT talking about the planet. And in this case it is kosmos which, to me, is much more indicative of the OC orderly system... And that puts a whole different perspective on the "He" that is in the world...yep, I really like that one! It is this usage of world that added impetus to the whole idea of Jesus being born under the law i.e. the OC system to redeem them that are under the law. John 3:16-17 is another good passage. The three "worlds' thre are the kosmos as well. Jesus sent only to the house of Israel too...etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 10, 2011 21:20:58 GMT -5
...John 3:16-17 is another good passage. The three "worlds' thre are the kosmos as well. Jesus sent only to the house of Israel too...etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Jesus came to save the Old Covenant? "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (John 3:17 NASB) I guess you could say that God sent Jesus to "save" the covenant by way of establishment of the new covenant. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 10, 2011 23:41:29 GMT -5
Flesh has nothing to do with human tissue. It is a referrant to the old covenant, as in "Israel after the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18). Flesh and spirit are contrasted all the time. It is OC versus NC. Jesus being born in the "flesh" has nothing to do with human skin. Both the natural body and the spiritual body are PHYSICAL bodies. They are in reference to the OC body versus the new covenant body... It is all about covenant. The entire NT is a transition from the old to the new.. Then how do you understand I Coorinthians 2.14?  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 11, 2011 9:29:58 GMT -5
...John 3:16-17 is another good passage. The three "worlds' thre are the kosmos as well. Jesus sent only to the house of Israel too...etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Jesus came to save the Old Covenant? "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (John 3:17 NASB) I guess you could say that God sent Jesus to "save" the covenant by way of establishment of the new covenant. The "kosmos" is indicative of just more than a system. Depending upon the context it may or may not include the people of that system. That was the point I was trying to make. In John 3:16, it is the people of that system. Israel's hopes had to be realized before our hopes could even be entertained - and yes, there were Gentiles that came into covenant along the way...the original mission was for the Jews. I guess that is one reason it bugs me so much that some futurists believe that God postponed His kingdom because of the reaction of the apostate Jews. HIS WHOLE PLAN WAS FOR THEM! |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 11, 2011 9:34:06 GMT -5
Flesh has nothing to do with human tissue. It is a referrant to the old covenant, as in "Israel after the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18). Flesh and spirit are contrasted all the time. It is OC versus NC. Jesus being born in the "flesh" has nothing to do with human skin. Both the natural body and the spiritual body are PHYSICAL bodies. They are in reference to the OC body versus the new covenant body... It is all about covenant. The entire NT is a transition from the old to the new.. Then how do you understand I Coorinthians 2.14? Thomas, I had initially desired to ask you "In what regard?" but have decided to stumble on through... I understand 1 Cor 2:14 as previously stated: " Both the natural body and the spiritual body are PHYSICAL bodies. They are in reference to the OC body versus the new covenant body..." If you have a more specific question, I will attempt to answer that as well... |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Feb 11, 2011 12:11:25 GMT -5
So when John wrote that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2), he was speaking of his arrival under the OC, the same way that Paul wrote that Jesus was "born under the Law" (Galatians 4:4)? Another instance I look at is Matthew 16:16,17, " Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "" If "flesh is the OC" then Jesus said it didn't reveal to Peter that He was the Christ. Yet in Acts 17:2,3 Paul uses OC writings to reason and demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ. Again, Galatians 3:24 shows that "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ". The NT writings show that the OC points to, and thereby reveals, that Jesus was the Christ. If "flesh" is the OC, what is "blood"? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 11, 2011 13:05:42 GMT -5
Another instance I look at is Matthew 16:16,17, " Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "" If "flesh is the OC" then Jesus said it didn't reveal to Peter that He was the Christ. Yet in Acts 17:2,3 Paul uses OC writings to reason and demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ. Again, Galatians 3:24 shows that "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ". The NT writings show that the OC points to, and thereby reveals, that Jesus was the Christ. If "flesh" is the OC, what is "blood"? Morris, I take that passage as referring to the teachers of the law from the Israel of the flesh - the people. Remember it was these same people who were confused a whole lot about the OT. Besides, if he really was convinced that Jesus was the Christ IN EVERY ASPECT (my emphasis), why then did Peter try to stop him from fulfilling the main duty of that Christ? Good question, huh? Try to think in Old covenant-related terms rather than nailing it down to a people, or a system, or a temple. It could be all or just one depending upon the immediate context. You might find the study of "flesh and blood" rather interesting. 1 Corinthians 15:50 - Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. This is where the usual futurists head off into the driection of a physical body. It is the OC body. The OC people had to transition over into the NC body of Christ. Corruption is assigned to the OC body and incorruption is assigned to the NC body. It is not dealing with human nature. Galatians 1:15-17 - But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. I think the distinction is made rather clear with Paul's use of "neither" in verse 17. To me, Paul (then Saul, a Pharisee) did not confer with his own teachers of the law (much in the same way that Peter did not) as to what had just happened, and NEITHER did he confer with the apostles. He went into Arabia and was instructed by the Lord, and 3 years later returned to the apostles... Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Admittedly, this gives me problems. I don't even know how we could associate it with human nature either. Perhaps Paul is saying, "Look guys, it's not the people, it's the nature of the system." And perhaps not. The previous verse sort of attaches the devil to this whole thought, which was sort of alluded to a few posts up (if I am even in the same thread, duhhhhhhh) Hebrews 2:14 - Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Notice the "AS" (simile) in the phrase " as the children are partakers of flesh and blood" and how it is associated Jesus taking part of the same? Sort of reminds you of Bev's question regarding 1 John 4:2, doesn't it? Surely, this verse is not reiterating that children (of whomever) have skin and hemoglobin. That wouldn't make any sense and is very similar to Israel after the flesh. It is all OC related... Edit 4:00 PM EST - to change "Morris, I take that passage as referring to the teachers of the law form the Israel of the flesh - the people." TO Morris, I take that passage as referring to the teachers of the law from the Israel of the flesh - the people. It makes quite a bit of difference so I wanted to point this out. |
|
