A Physical Return of Christ in the future

What magic do you use to attest to things you haven't seen

Since verse 9 says he disappeared from their sight. By what magical means do you suppose they would know he went to heaven if someone had not testified to that fact.

And if you lived in that time period and weren't familiar with Jesus and his followers tried to tell you where he went right after saying he disappeared from view what credibility would they have on the matter--and how much would that harm their witness to other things they tried to tell you after establishing the fact that they knowingly attest to things they can't see and have no other witnesses to?

???????

 

Gold medal for hermeneutical gymnastics in the 2010 Gnostic Games.

 

Then, why did the apostle John, while still on the earth, write "Even so, Lord Jesus, come"?

 

There are two extremes concerning prophecy: the preterist and the futurist. Both are dead wrong. Both think they are right because they see the logical fallacy of the opposing view, but both are curiously blind to the logical fallacy of their own view.

The Olivet Discourse is neither all about 70 AD nor all about the future second coming of Jesus and subsequent end of the world. The truth is, it is about both. Many prophecies, not all, but many are much the same, blending events together despite their being separated by large gaps of time.

 

What is the supposed connection between John's statement and Acts 1: 9 - 11.

There are plenty of verses in the bible that address the Lord's return. Acts 1:9 -11 just doesn't happen to be one of them. 9 - 11 simply seeks to prove Christ went to heaven when he left the view of the Apostles.

You seem to be slaying a phantom dragon--I've never suggested Christ didn't return (as in his 70 AD return) I'm simply not twisting these versed into something they are not.

 

Two issues at hand: One is TIMING. That is up for debate, IMO.

The other: THE PHYSICAL NATURE of Christ's return (much like his resurrection). That simply isn't up for debate.

 

That most certainly is up for debate. Christ's resurrection most emphatically had to be physical, since He triumphed over sin, including the spiritual and physical consequences.

But God is essentially spirit and they who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth. Christ is God. Christ, had no reason to return physically. He did not, in fact.

If you think He will, then I assume He will come (according to your view) in the dimensions of a man? Every eye will see a 6 foot man coming from heaven? Every eye all over the globe? Or will he be giant? I am not trying to ridicule. I am just trying to show the fallacy of your whole thinking. The reason some people insist so strenuously on physicality is that - to them - that is the center of their truth, physical, not spiritual

God is spirit.
We shall be like Him.
That means, among other things, we shall be spirit. That is not something "ghosty" or "unreal", It only seems so to those who don't sufficiently value and appreciate the spiritual life we have in Christ.

 

You ignore the fact that when Christ said God is a Spirit, He Himself, at that time, was flesh.

Christ, who I think we can all agree was Spirit prior to His incarnation, was made flesh. He took upon Himself human nature. All the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily. From that point forward He has been God and man. When He rose from the dead, He arose in a physical body, the same one He lived in and died in. He told His disciples to handle Him, as a spirit has not flesh and bone, and another body doesn't have the wounds He suffered at Calvary. In that same body, He ascended on high and sat down at the right hand of the Father. That is where He is now, in that same body, albeit glorified and changed into what Paul calls a "spiritual body." The designation "spiritual" doesn't necessarily mean it stopped being physical, but rather shows that it is somewhat changed from what we now have which is a "natural body." It is that image, the image of Christ in a resurrection, glorified, "spiritual body", that we will be conformed at the resurrection at the end of time. The extent of the physicality of that body is not explored in scripture. John, who the Holy Spirit guided into all knowledge, says it does not yet appear (we are not yet made aware) exactly how that will all be. God hasn't told us yet, and the main reason probably is because our minds can't handle the information. But we know this, when we see Jesus in glory, we'll be like Him. That is sufficient. Anyone arguing for or against us being in physical bodies in the resurrection is arguing something that not even John knew. That is extremely foolish.

 

Enough said. I'll look for intelligent argumentation elsewhere.

 

I also ignored the fact that he was probably wearing sandals at the time. Both points were irrelevant to my point.

 

How is the fact that at the same time Jesus said God is (present tense) a Spirit He wasn't only a Spirit but also flesh and blood irrelevant to the discussion? You brought up that passage to support your view as if it squashed everything else and showed that God is a Spirit and only a Spirit forever. How is the fact that when Jesus uttered it that He was flesh and blood irrelevant?

 

What an arrogant statement! I'm quite honestly shocked by this.

 

Oh please. Look at your earlier comments.

For the record: I am not saying you are incapable of intelligent argumentation. I am saying that you are not showing it in this thread.

You ignore things I wrote and put words in my mouth.

I will not respond anymore to you, for the good of both of us. Fair enough?

 

How did I put words into your mouth? You stated that you knew the extent of the physicality of the resurrected bodies. That is the argument you are making. The scripture doesn't give that information.

 

The Word becomes flesh

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,...

Given that Jesus became flesh he obviously was something else until he became flesh. He took our form while he was on earth. When we are resurrected for eternity we will become spirit obviously since flesh and blood can't enter the kingdom of God.

Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.

What could be more simple than that?

 

I see selective scriptural application. It's easy to twist one verse into an incorrect meaning when you isolate it; however, if one reads the surrounding verses one gets the proper context here.

Start reading from 1 Corinthians verse 35 till the end of the chapter and it is easy to see they describe the nature of the resurrection body and Christ's victory in resurrection!

 

People see what they want to see.

In some way it reminds me of the parents watching their son marching in formation.
"Look! Everyone is marching out of step except our Johnny!"