A Physical Return of Christ in the future

Agreed. Logos1 has succumbed to gnosticism.

 

The heretics have already waffled on it. Logos1 has already said that Jesus had a physical body after His resurrection "at least part of the time", but only "before his ascension". Not to mention that the heretics deny the biblical truth that Jesus' resurrection is the firstfruit of the resurrection at His Second Coming.

 

That's exactly what it is. Gnosticism was condemned as a heresy by the early church, and has been universally viewed as heretical throughout the history of the Church.

 

Paul assures us we don't have physical bodies

I'm always baffled with the reluctance to part company with our physical bodies. It's like not having faith in God that he has something better in store for us.

Your argument about a physical body entering the heaven is not with me. It's with the apostle Paul who left no question on the issue in 1 Cor 15:50

"I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

You can make yourself out to be more inspired than Paul and dispute his teaching on the matter, but as for me I trust the plan of God as stated by God himself in the form of the Holy Spirit writing through Paul more than anybody I've run into in a forum yet.

 

I wouldn't say that a physical return of Christ is a part of the gospel, per se. I would say that it is a part of the "body of faith" that was "once delivered to the saints" and we should contend for it.

In my church, would I accept a member who does not hold to the physical return of Christ (In the OP, here is the opening question: How important is it to you that one hold to a physical return of Christ in the future?)? If we had some newly saved people who wanted to become members but who had never been taught about this matter, OF COURSE, we would accept them as members. If I had a guy like AsterikTom show up who once held the correct position and has now turned from it and is ambitious about teaching his view, NO WAY would I accept him as a member. I wouldn't even let you attend our services and make friends with people in the congregation. It's not personal. In fact I'm happy you're on the BB and am happy to discuss this topic here, but a pastor has a duty to protect his congregation from false doctrine and from poor interpretations and the faulty hermeneutics that lead to them. So, yeah, I think holding to a future literal, bodily return of Christ is pretty important.

 

Job 19:26 says "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:".

You're the one who is twisting the Holy Scriptures. I've clearly exposited the I Corinthians passage.

Let me turn your first statement around: I can't imagine why you would not want to have a physical body, given that God created you that way. It saddens me to see your self-hatred, but I guess heresy will do that to you.

 

Matt. 16:23 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.


How can anyone equivocate on this????

Of course Christ came quickly,in the lifetime of some of His disciples. Scripture is clear.

Not to mention...when one begins to waffle on the integrity of Christ's words then waffling on the deity of Christ becomes one step easier.

There. Two can play that silly game.

 

Well said, swaimj.

I'm bothered that there are folks who feel the need to explain away the physical return of Christ.

Gnosticism was heretical in the first century, and it still is today.

Folks who speak against Christ's literal return in physical form don't have far to go before they start "educating" us about the resurrection.

It will likely be conveyed something like, "after much study, I'm here to educate you on the deep theological truths you all have missed."

But it will be (just as it is now) gnostic. And it's seriously wrong, , flawed, dangerous, heretical theology.

 

No.

Only one is playing the "silly game" of gnosticism.

I'm not much for that game. I prefer Scrabble.

 

ahem...asterisktom. Two S's,

I appreciate you being upfront here. I will try to do the same.

It bothers me to read this, of course. Truth be known, it is exactly the type of thing I would write about ten years ago. The concerns you raised about my assumed heterodoxy (some would say heresy) is the reason why I don't participate in my local church the way I used to. I have turned down a chance to speak because I know the pastor would have major problems with my preterism, and I don't want to start teaching/preaching gingerly around subjects. It is not being upfront.

But keep this in mind. My coming to Preterism has been the result of patient, prayerful study. Mostly and primarily of Scripture. Not just verses here and there, but chapters and books. For instance, in the last nine years I have especially studied out Isaiah, reading it at least once a year, many passages much more than that. I made it a point not to rely on commentaries but more to rely on books like Wilson's Word Studies of the Old Testament (counterpart to Vine's NT BTW).

All that to say this: I am absolutely sure of my Preterism. I finally see it in Scripture, not only as a tenet of eschatology, but as a foundation of Christology. In fact, many passages I would earlier have filed under eschatology I now understand as being clearly soteriological and Christological.

Preterism, in my view, is nothing more than taking Christ at His Word - and connecting the dots, following bravely wherever they go.

But that is my view. I am not calling those who disagree cowards ... or unable to follow dots.

 

Job 19:26 says "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:".

Here is a wonderful example of twisting the scripture and dishonest expositing. Any major study bible I’ve seen on this scripture with a whole team of bible scholars studying it state something to the effect that the Hebrew here is uncertain.

Some of the more literal translations say the exact opposite of the translation you used. For example

ASV
And after my skin, even this body , is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God

Darby

And [if] after my skin this shall be destroyed, yet from out of my flesh shall I see +God

Even the more dynamic NIRV says

After my skin has been destroyed, in my body I'll still see God.

Note this translation doesn’t specify a fleshly body it could just as easily be a spiritual body.
Bottom line you just don’t have an honest biblical case to declare flesh is reconstituted in our glorified body.

I can trust God on the matter and not try to finagle words into his mouth. I’ll be glad to shed the fleshly body to enter heaven.

 

A non-physical body is an oxymoron. It's like saying "private sector government job". I'll come back to the Job passage later, because now I have to go to work, which is something else I have to have my body to do.

 

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. - 1Cor 15:44

This spiritual body, of course, is not of flesh and blood. Was Paul being "oxymoronic"?

 

Yeah, Tom, believe me, it's not personal. Ultimately, when you study scripture you draw conclusions, and ultimately, at some point you have to say that some things are right, some things are wrong, and some things are kindof in between where there is a range of views that are acceptable, but even there, it can go to far and one has to draw lines. I'm probably the most reluctant guy on the board to call someone else a heretic.

I think it's interesting that one of the motivators for your preterism is the book of Isaiah. NT writers are pretty clear that OT writers did not always understand the things they wrote. And people who lived in Jesus time, having the OT, most certainly did not recognize the Christ when he appeared in their midst. It is only after the Spirit lifted the blinders off of men's eyes after the resurrection of Jesus that men understood who Jesus was/is. And, in the NT, even Peter had difficulty in understanding the writings of Paul. So for a NT believer to draw their primary understanding of eschatology from the OT is akin to following a hand-drawn map of the Americas from the 1800s while rejecting a satellite map made from a picture taken in outer space last week. You are preferring the less complete and making the more complete secondary. I just can't track with your hermenuetic at all.

 

Good grief. I said "for example" before mentioning my study in Isaiah. Should I balance it out now by saying that I read the New Testament about three or four times as much as the Old? This is true, because I have kept a record of my Bible reading for almost a decade. I do this to make sure I don't always just read favorite books and avoid others. But, yes, I read through the NT usually twice or three times a year.

So my "primary understanding" is from the NT. I am not "preferring the less complete", but neither am I ignoring it.

Forget it.

 

Just using the NT writers own words such as last days, this generation, those who pierced him, at hand, last hour, and Jesus assuring us he will come quickly you have to torture the normal meaning of the words to move Christ's second coming thousands of years in the future.

Not logical.

If the Holy Spirit wished to communicate to us he would have to use words as we understand them or else there is no communication unless he redefined them for us and he didn't so we can safely assume we need to use the normal usage of those words.

If you can't trust those words regarding the timing of His return then you can't trust anything else they said either. It all becomes meaningless...saved by faith, risen from the dead, etc where would it end. Christianity would become utterly meaningless.

 

The angels said "Jesus would come again just as you have seen him go" and the scriptures say "we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as he is". YOU have to do language gymnastics to make this return an event that is already past. If not, please tell us when you saw Jesus.

 

You make it sound like that this was the NT writers' overriding assessment of OT understanding. You overstate this one aspect from one, or at the most two NT verses, and pass over the other times when they quote extensively from the OT prophets and apply it to what is happening in their lifetime.

To be more exact, the issue is not what the OT didn't understand (no argument here). The issue is twofold:
1. What the OT writers wrote and,
2. How the NT writers - or do we argue that they also were unclear? - applied those OT passages.

Many examples have already been used:
Christ's use, Luke 4, of Isa. 61.
The Jerusalem Council's use of Amos 9.
Peter's use of Joel 2 in Acts 2.
John's use of Zech. 12 in John 19.

In each of these examples the New Testament speaks of fulfillment, not foreshadowing of some imagined future re-fulfillment.

In each of these passages - and many more - the one who is committed to a dispensational futurist framework is forced to go against all these verses, and against all the inspired interpreters.

 

Actually your quote is not what the bible says...more literal versions such as the ESV say "will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven"

At best its only a school of thought that "come in" means return to earth. I find the school of thought that holds "come in" means come into heaven more likely the best interpretation. In other words the verse describes the same event as viewed from inside heaven and reported by the two angels. That makes more sense since the apostles say in verse 9 that Jesus went into a cloud out of their sight. They require heavenly witnesses to claim Jesus went into heaven.

This verse is only about proving Jesus went to heaven and has nothing to say about his return. The return is dealt with in other verses.