Jesus' ASCENSION, and what actually occurred.

[Davy]

What is the point about before? Conception is a pretty narrow field. Conception was when the Lord God became flesh. The ascended body also always existed, because that body can exist outside of time and creation, and is not limited by creation. Jesus and the Word do not cease to exist after creation is handed back to God.
....

Yeah, we already know that you would REFUSE to answer that question.

It's because you don't want to give up your THEORY FROM MEN about a false fleshy resurrection body.

Like many here on MEN'S FALSE DOCTRINES, you have a selective reading of Bible Scripture. What you don't like, you just throw away.

It's not difficult to understand what 'kind' of body Lord Jesus had PRIOR to His birth through Mary's womb into the flesh.

John 4:24
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.
KJV

 

[ScottA]

Well if you think that, explain the appearance of Christ after His bodily resurrection as presented in Scripture.

That is what I have been doing, but now will elaborate:

Most consider the times of Christ to primarily be those times leading up to the cross, and indeed, that is the core of it. However, there is more, specifically referred to as the times of the gentiles or the church age. But your question was about the forty days between His resurrection and His ascension, and His body. That time was a foreshadowing of what was to come, by no coincidence, just as the forty days in the ark and also the forty years in the desert. The forty days were as to the world (as to the gentiles), and the forty years magnified as a light upon a hill (as to Israel).

The forty days of Jesus' bodily resurrected between His resurrection and ascension, is, as it is written, the testimony "that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh." 1 John 4:2-3 Which to that [evil] generation was life or death...as it is also for us--not that we can witness to His coming in the flesh during their time, but ours. That is, as a foreshadowing of these times of the church age and the gentiles, if He has come into us--He "has come in the flesh", as we are His body which He gave to the church, saying, "take eat" and "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." Which was to be the way of His returning in the flesh, as He also told us, saying "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."

This was to be our testimony, but indeed, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is week." Many who have enjoyed these times with Him have not testified as they should have.

As for the foreshadowing presented by the forty days between Jesus' resurrection and ascension, they were a foreshadowing of these times before what? Before the end of the age...but what is written of what comes then? Much is written, but what is important to understand is that as He went to the Father, we go also--and these heavens and earth pass away. Be careful not to get bogged down in the visions of all of what occurs in heavenly places, which are not of this world per se. The clear vision therefore, is when the End whom is Jesus Christ comes, the heavens are whirling, but what occurs according to God's eternity is not what occurs during the remaining times of this world. Both are written. But all that actually occurs during the times we remain in the world, Jesus foreshadowed during that forty days: Wherein it was previewed that the bride worships Him, lies are told about Him, He comes among His disciples, the commission indeed goes out, the scriptures are recounted to those who can not see until He opens their eyes; "And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."

And yet the greater point, is what was and is yet to come after the end of the age, which is when we too become One with Christ and God the Father--which now leaves many still in blindness...about what actually occurred at His ascension.

 

[ScottA]

Its Scott who is going against scripture, in removing biblical truth through symbolic allegory "Shame"!

Do you not know that it is God's way to speak in parables?

You "shame" yourself.​

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus isn't human as you falsely claim

Humans die physical death, Jesus Christ is immortal, and has conquered human death

As stated, your theology is way out in left field, the very reason I ignore response to your claims

Your theology states there was no death on the Cross? What actually happened then?

Acts 13:28-30

"And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead:"

Romans 4:24-25

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

Romans 8:10-11

"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

Jesus was 100% physically human from conception, and 100% human from the resurrection. Jesus fully submitted to death, because He was God, not that his physical body eventually succumbed to death.

Matthew 27:50.

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke 23:46-47

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man."

Mark 13:37-39

"And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."

John 19:30.

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Jesus was human and died. Jesus was God and could die at will, without committing suicide. God declared the act finished, death happened, and then death was defeated via a resurrection.

 

[Timtofly]

So now you are CALLING SOLOMON a LIAR with Bible Scripture which God influences His people by The Holy Spirit to understand? Lord Jesus agreed with Solomon in Ecclesiastes 12:5-7, why can't you...

John 3:6
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
KJV

Thank you, what you said is just MORE EVIDENCE that you follow an AGENDA BY MEN, and NOT the written Word of God!

I did not say Solomon was a liar. I said he was an occultist. You are speaking partial truths, not the whole truth.

Do you lie?

Jesus was saying those of Adam will die with Adam. Those of God will live with God. You have to have a physical body, or you would not exist. Only those from Adam are currently being born on earth. No one is an offspring from another son of God, born without sin.

We are body soul, and spirit. We are not body now, but spirit later. We will always be body, soul, and spirit.

 

[Truth7t7]

Your theology states there was no death on the Cross? What actually happened then?

Acts 13:28-30

"And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead:"

Romans 4:24-25

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

Romans 8:10-11

"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

Jesus was 100% physically human from conception, and 100% human from the resurrection. Jesus fully submitted to death, because He was God, not that his physical body eventually succumbed to death.

Matthew 27:50.

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke 23:46-47

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man."

Mark 13:37-39

"And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."

John 19:30.

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Jesus was human and died. Jesus was God and could die at will, without committing suicide. God declared the act finished, death happened, and then death was defeated via a resurrection.

A "False Claim"!

At no time did I state or suggest that Jesus Christ didn't physically die on the cross of Calvary

 

[Timtofly]

Yeah, we already know that you would REFUSE to answer that question.

It's because you don't want to give up your THEORY FROM MEN about a false fleshy resurrection body.

Like many here on MEN'S FALSE DOCTRINES, you have a selective reading of Bible Scripture. What you don't like, you just throw away.

It's not difficult to understand what 'kind' of body Lord Jesus had PRIOR to His birth through Mary's womb into the flesh.

John 4:24
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.
KJV

You are the one denying Jesus appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18:1-3

"And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:"

Can you prove that Jesus is not the Lord?

 

[Davy]

I did not say Solomon was a liar. I said he was an occultist. You are speaking partial truths, not the whole truth.

No 'partial truths' on MY part. That is YOU doing that, you hypocrite!

When Lord Jesus AGREES with what Solomon wrote, then does that ALSO make Lord Jesus an OCCULTIST in your mind?

All you want to do is MANIPULATE THE SCRIPTURES per your own agenda or the agenda of the men you follow, and not HEED what the Bible Scriptures actually say as written.

 

[Davy]

You are the one denying Jesus appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18:1-3

YOU ARE A LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE!

Many times on this forum I have PROCLAIMED that Lord Jesus was one of the "three men" that appeared to Abraham at his tent door per Genesis 18! I even proclaimed that was Lord Jesus that remained with Abraham speaking with Abraham in the latter part of that Genesis 18 Chapter, when the other two men were the two angels Jesus sent to Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah per the next Genesis 19 Chapter!!!

 

[DanielConway]

OK. Let's try to get back to the initial thrust of the thread, which was the assertion that Christ did not retain his fleshly body at his ascension, an assertion that I deny. The original poster relies heavily on the I Corinthians discourse about the resurrection body to infer that Christ must somehow have been transformed into a purely spiritual being at his ascension even though there is no text in any of the accounts to support it it. However, there are several accounts of Christ's body post resurrection and prior to the ascension that overtly prove that it had already been radically transformed. He apparently passes through closed doors at one appearance, his appearance at another manifestation is so different that the witnesses to his appearance do not recognize him until he disappears from their sight, and the very fact that he rose physically into the heavens at his ascension all demonstrate that his resurrected body had taken on Angelic characteristics prior to his ascension. I maintain that these evidences are enough to prove that Christ was already in his spiritual body at his resurrection, a body that palpably had flesh, just ask Thomas, and that no further spiritualization of his corpus need be read into his ascension. Likewise, our bodies will have spiritual flesh at our resurrection just as his currently does.

 

[ScottA]

OK. Let's try to get back to the initial thrust of the thread, which was the assertion that Christ did not retain his fleshly body at his ascension, an assertion that I deny. The original poster relies heavily on the I Corinthians discourse about the resurrection body to infer that Christ must somehow have been transformed into a purely spiritual being at his ascension even though there is no text in any of the accounts to support it it. However, there are several accounts of Christ's body post resurrection and prior to the ascension that overtly prove that it had already been radically transformed. He apparently passes through closed doors at one appearance, his appearance at another manifestation is so different that the witnesses to his appearance do not recognize him until he disappears from their sight, and the very fact that he rose physically into the heavens at his ascension all demonstrate that his resurrected body had taken on Angelic characteristics prior to his ascension. I maintain that these evidences are enough to prove that Christ was already in his spiritual body at his resurrection, a body that palpably had flesh, just ask Thomas, and that no further spiritualization of his corpus need be read into his ascension. Likewise, our bodies will have spiritual flesh at our resurrection just as his currently does.

Thanks for getting back on track!

You make a reasonable comment, and I agree with much of it. But many refer to that which is born of the Spirit as flesh against the biblical fact that, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

So, if all that was assumed and claimed were limited to the idea of a "spiritual body"--no problem. But many elaborate to say things like the natural body that we are born with is raised and reconstituted by the Spirit, but remains flesh. Or worse, that God whom is spirit, is not perfect as the scriptures say, and yet has become more perfect by taking on and glorifying the dust-made flesh of this world into something greater than even Christ had before the world was.

Thus, my assertion is not against the scriptures that would appear to show and even visually demonstrate what actually cannot be seen, but for what is written without assuming what is not biblical to assume. The main thing that should never be questioned or thought to be different, is that God is spirit and perfect, making the very definition of "perfect": spirit. Which is exactly what Jesus said of the third day, saying, "I shall be perfected." And regardless of how one views the words of the gospels leading up to that, the end of the matter according to Christ, is the we "shall be perfect, just as our Father in heaven is perfect."

All of which means that many are reading the gospels and forming their own ideas against what the scriptures actually say.

But does that mean that there is no such thing as a "spiritual body?" No, not at all. However, I would caution that many will assume that to mean everything that it does not mean, nor is biblically true--which has been the problem.

Also, does that mean that God cannot and has not manifest in physical form? Not at all. In fact He has manifest us all and even Himself in physical form even in the flesh. But, "then comes the end", or "the third day" referred to by Christ as His "perfection" and glory, which glory is that "of the Father" which is perfect and spirit--no flesh mentioned.

And then there is the problem of not reckoning with the fact that like Jesus, we are to be One with God, and therefore spirit. Again, that is the end of all that is written of the gospels. There is no alternate finish including flesh bodies, where we and Jesus hang out with the Father in the flesh. That is just the flesh talking against the Spirit, and many have believed it.

But none of that means that what is born of the spirit of God is less than the flesh that so many love. That's just crazy talk from those who can't even imagine all that awaits.

So "perfection" or "fire." Those are the choices.

 

[DanielConway]

OK, step one. The reference to flesh giving birth to flesh and spirit giving birth to spirit when read in context is a clear reference to a natural birth (the first) and a quickening by the spirit at our second birth at the point of our conversion, NOT any sort of spiritual birth at our physical resurrection. This in fact militates against your argument in that it implies a spiritual existence acceptable to God in our flesh. Why do I say that? Paul clearly states that in our reginerate state we can walk boldly into the throne room of God without fear of being incinerated for our impertinence. The reference to the notion that God is made more perfect by taking on flesh is a complete red herring. The scripture clearly states that Christ was perfected by suffering, which the word seems to imply is possible either in spirit or in flesh. It is a more reasonable argument to maintain that it is necessary for Christ to remain in the flesh in order to serve in his role as intermediater between man and God, as it is necessary for an intermediater to partake of the circumstances of both parties. I don't see how anything in the preceding argument forces anything out of the gospels that isn't there, but I do think your's does.
The assertion that Christ in his current state might be said to once again be taking on the glory of the Father is dicey, One might argue that each member of the Godhead has a glory that is fully deity but unique to each members role, a proposition I am more comfortable with but you might be able to debate me out of. Regardless of this, there is nothing in the scriptures that implies that having a flesh body precludes one from having a perfect and divine nature. That assertion is a first principle in Christian theology when considering the nature of Christ, fully man, and therefor flesh, and fully God, and therefor perfect.
I don't know about that assertion that in our perfected state we are to be one with God, that sounds vaugely Buddist. We are to be like God, but just as Christ was fully God and fully man in his earthly ministry, we will be fully Godlike and fully men and women in glory, neither IN SCRIPTURE precludes the other.

 

[Timtofly]

However, there are several accounts of Christ's body post resurrection and prior to the ascension that overtly prove that it had already been radically transformed. He apparently passes through closed doors at one appearance, his appearance at another manifestation is so different that the witnesses to his appearance do not recognize him until he disappears from their sight, and the very fact that he rose physically into the heavens at his ascension all demonstrate that his resurrected body had taken on Angelic characteristics prior to his ascension.

All this was possible before the Cross. Jesus had already demonstrated walking on water. The mount of Transfiguration was clearly a point that Jesus could do what ever needed to be done when the event called for that particular need. Not sure why any make such a big deal between the pre and post resurrection physical body of Jesus. What pertains to Jesus as God does not pertain to us as humans. We are not God. We are only sons of God in God's image.

 

[ScottA]

OK, step one. The reference to flesh giving birth to flesh and spirit giving birth to spirit when read in context is a clear reference to a natural birth (the first) and a quickening by the spirit at our second birth at the point of our conversion, NOT any sort of spiritual birth at our physical resurrection. This in fact militates against your argument in that it implies a spiritual existence acceptable to God in our flesh. Why do I say that? Paul clearly states that in our reginerate state we can walk boldly into the throne room of God without fear of being incinerated for our impertinence. The reference to the notion that God is made more perfect by taking on flesh is a complete red herring. The scripture clearly states that Christ was perfected by suffering, which the word seems to imply is possible either in spirit or in flesh. It is a more reasonable argument to maintain that it is necessary for Christ to remain in the flesh in order to serve in his role as intermediater between man and God, as it is necessary for an intermediater to partake of the circumstances of both parties. I don't see how anything in the preceding argument forces anything out of the gospels that isn't there, but I do think your's does.
The assertion that Christ in his current state might be said to once again be taking on the glory of the Father is dicey, One might argue that each member of the Godhead has a glory that is fully deity but unique to each members role, a proposition I am more comfortable with but you might be able to debate me out of. Regardless of this, there is nothing in the scriptures that implies that having a flesh body precludes one from having a perfect and divine nature. That assertion is a first principle in Christian theology when considering the nature of Christ, fully man, and therefor flesh, and fully God, and therefor perfect.
I don't know about that assertion that in our perfected state we are to be one with God, that sounds vaugely Buddist. We are to be like God, but just as Christ was fully God and fully man in his earthly ministry, we will be fully Godlike and fully men and women in glory, neither IN SCRIPTURE precludes the other.

Your first paragraph is all through the lens and understanding of men, men of flesh. In other words, it is logical according to how those who know only the things of this world and are just learning of heavenly things (and yet mostly not learning) would tend to imagine. It's as if Jesus announced that we must be born again...and no one played the roll of Nicodemus allowing Jesus' heavenly logic to prevail in the exchange--leaving men to surmise something that did not offend their human worldly logic.

I get it. It just isn't so. And yes, I invoke "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

Second paragraph: Still human worldly logic at work. As for the scriptures, of course it is there: The elements included in the creation are to be dissolved with fervent heat and with fire. But don't misunderstand when it come to Christ...Christ is not what shall be, but is rather limited to the sacrifice for sin. By definition, this is the very thing that qualified Christ to pay the price for sin--that He was indeed a man. Which is to say that He too was formed of the dust of the ground, the elements that are to be dissolved. What did you think--that since Jesus gave His body to the church, that He is now with the Father bodiless? Or that He did not give His body to the church after saying otherwise, but is withholding until He returns, and that we will then all take our places in His garment? Again, these things are the concoctions of human logic, things that have not even been thought out by most who now swear by them.

But I will tell you: "To live is Christ" was not stated by Paul in arrogance, but was ordained by the power of God in Christ for His church. The church is His body, but just as Paul preached, we "do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—", but rather, it dies and returns to the dust and is dissolved, leaving only the spirit.

So, no, Jesus did not drag his flesh body into heaven, but gave it to the church until the times are fulfilled. And going to the Father and being One never meant anything to do with the flesh.

Third paragraph: "vaguely Buddhist?" No...not even close, but rather the prayer of Christ:

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”
​

And here also:

1 Corinthians 15:28
Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.​

 

[Randy Kluth]

For these past two thousand years of the church age most have misunderstood what actually occurred when Jesus ascended into heaven (as opposed to what occurred at his resurrection from the dead on earth).

He did indeed raise from the dead, went through walls and locked doors, ate fish, walked and talked, and even felt like His former flesh to the touch--because He was flesh. But just as He could have at any time, even before He rose from the dead, prayed and brought down legions of angels--His resurrection was not the same as His ascension. They were two different and separate acts, different for a reason: because being raised from the grave is NOT the same as "going to the Father."

When Jesus said in the scriptures that "God is spirit"--no flesh is included. Flesh is of the world, created of the dust. God is not created of the dust, nor has He intended to be lower than He already is, as the world is lower. On the contrary, He is not lowered except in Christ for salvation, but rather we are to be lifted up--to be prefect "as He is perfect"--just the way He is--which "is spirit." And that is what happened at Jesus' ascension, that did not happen at His resurrection.

I agree with you that the resurrection of Jesus and the ascension of Jesus are two different things. I agree with you that the resurrection of Jesus was a resurrection of flesh, of his old body, and yet with supernatural abilities on display just as he had when walking upon the water. He could appear from out of nowhere, and simply disappear.

Regardless, where we disagree is on what happened at the Ascension. I believe Jesus received a new immortal body--something Paul said we can't fully comprehend at present. And when he returns, the saints of today and of yesterday will join with him in heaven to put on our own glorified, immortal bodies. Then we'll return with him to reign over the still-mortal earth, ensuring that Satan remains "behind bars," and that the world completes its task of fulfilling what God had promised to Abraham.

We do not become "glorified spirits," but rather, "glorified human beings of new, immortal flesh." This is not the flesh of today, which is sin-infected and condemned. Rather, this is new glorified flesh, not to be confused with "spirits," or "ghosts," which are bodiless entities. On the contrary, to reign forever with Christ, we must be like Christ forever.

I don't believe he returns to God to merge in with Him spiritually, but to remain distinct from Him as a man and yet in union with Him as partners in His Deity. We also remain distinct from Deity as His creatures, and yet remain in union with Him spiritually.

 

[DanielConway]

Whoa, whoa, whoa Scott, consider what you are saying! I quote the plain and universally understood by the church (except by you) meaning of a text and you claim I am viewing through the understanding of the flesh? Man, that's gnostacism plain and forthrightly. You are claiming special knowledge that only you have and you are being ideologically inconsistent even in your own aberrant system in that you are claiming it while you are still in your imperfect flesh rather than your ostensibly perfected purely spiritual state. I have to concede that there is an implication of oneness with God in the scripture you quoted, but a more complete reading of all the text clearly implies a Oneness of purpose rather than a Oneness of being. Consider that Christ said that he was one with the father while he was still in the world. The Pharasees called this a logical impossibility because they, as you, were confusing oneness of role with oneness of purpose and being. And look, if you are going to quote Revelation as a proof that a dissolution of the current order will result in a new purely spiritual one, quote it all! There are myriad references to the new order that demonstrate that it too will have a material nature, the reference to the new Jerusalem and an attendant description that is overtly material being one of the most prominant. I warn you, not as a threat but as an admonition, not to read into the test of the immutable word of God your own predillections and then claim they are to be spiritually discerned, a spirit which you alone appear to possess. This is perilous, the stuff of cults, OK? Strong words, but merited.

 

[ScottA]

I agree with you that the resurrection of Jesus and the ascension of Jesus are two different things. I agree with you that the resurrection of Jesus was a resurrection of flesh, of his old body, and yet with supernatural abilities on display just as he had when walking upon the water. He could appear from out of nowhere, and simply disappear.

Regardless, where we disagree is on what happened at the Ascension. I believe Jesus received a new immortal body--something Paul said we can't fully comprehend at present. And when he returns, the saints of today and of yesterday will join with him in heaven to put on our own glorified, immortal bodies. Then we'll return with him to reign over the still-mortal earth, ensuring that Satan remains "behind bars," and that the world completes its task of fulfilling what God had promised to Abraham.

We do not become "glorified spirits," but rather, "glorified human beings of new, immortal flesh." This is not the flesh of today, which is sin-infected and condemned. Rather, this is new glorified flesh, not to be confused with "spirits," or "ghosts," which are bodiless entities. On the contrary, to reign forever with Christ, we must be like Christ forever.

I don't believe he returns to God to merge in with Him spiritually, but to remain distinct from Him as a man and yet in union with Him as partners in His Deity. We also remain distinct from Deity as His creatures, and yet remain in union with Him spiritually.

The problem with the idea that "Jesus received a new immortal body"...is that the church is His body (of flesh). "Glorified immortal bodies" is not the problem, but rather "glorified flesh bodies"--the scriptures just don't say that.

From there your description seems to express the confusion quite well, with the idea of Christ returning in His own body and we in ours during a time of "ensuring that Satan remains 'behind bars.'" That makes this all a two part misunderstanding of what the scriptures actually describe...and the issue boils down to the timing: Most believe that Jesus has not actually been reigning in the world which was to come "soon" or "quickly" after He went to the Father; and yet scripturally, that reign was given to Him two thousand years ago, and therefore He also said that all these things "must shortly take place." This is all a case of unbelief and a lack of faith by many of the early church fathers for which both Peter and Paul foretold that without question, but for certain, "false teachers" would enter and cause "strong delusion" and "great apostacy." These are the biblical facts that have eluded many and caused many to believe what is now mostly believed that is not at all true. Yet Christ indeed reigns in spite of the unbelief of many and the doctrine of devils that has permeated the church. Therefore, rather than a thousand year reign and a thousand years of Satan being bound--it has been two, and a mixture of both, during which time it has come true, that "the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect”--because most did not believe what He said, but preferred to believe a "lie."

Nonetheless, this is that foretold "due season" and the times of the gentiles and their folly are fulfilled. These are the times of the sounding of the seventh angel.

 

[ScottA]

Whoa, whoa, whoa Scott, consider what you are saying! I quote the plain and universally understood by the church (except by you) meaning of a text and you claim I am viewing through the understanding of the flesh? Man, that's gnostacism plain and forthrightly. You are claiming special knowledge that only you have and you are being ideologically inconsistent even in your own aberrant system in that you are claiming it while you are still in your imperfect flesh rather than your ostensibly perfected purely spiritual state. I have to concede that there is an implication of oneness with God in the scripture you quoted, but a more complete reading of all the text clearly implies a Oneness of purpose rather than a Oneness of being. Consider that Christ said that he was one with the father while he was still in the world. The Pharasees called this a logical impossibility because they, as you, were confusing oneness of role with oneness of purpose and being. And look, if you are going to quote Revelation as a proof that a dissolution of the current order will result in a new purely spiritual one, quote it all! There are myriad references to the new order that demonstrate that it too will have a material nature, the reference to the new Jerusalem and an attendant description that is overtly material being one of the most prominant. I warn you, not as a threat but as an admonition, not to read into the test of the immutable word of God your own predillections and then claim they are to be spiritually discerned, a spirit which you alone appear to possess. This is perilous, the stuff of cults, OK? Strong words, but merited.

Read post #57.

But no, Gnosticism is something completely different. And what is "universally understood by the church" has been greatly and willingly corrupted. What I am saying is what Jesus said, but was not believed.

PS, Hey, I see you are new--welcome! Wow, you hit the ground running. Let's see if we can sort this out in love..​

 

[ScottA]

I have to concede that there is an implication of oneness with God in the scripture you quoted, but a more complete reading of all the text clearly implies a Oneness of purpose rather than a Oneness of being. Consider that Christ said that he was one with the father while he was still in the world. The Pharasees called this a logical impossibility because they, as you, were confusing oneness of role with oneness of purpose and being. And look, if you are going to quote Revelation as a proof that a dissolution of the current order will result in a new purely spiritual one, quote it all! There are myriad references to the new order that demonstrate that it too will have a material nature, the reference to the new Jerusalem and an attendant description that is overtly material being one of the most prominant. I warn you, not as a threat but as an admonition, not to read into the test of the immutable word of God your own predillections and then claim they are to be spiritually discerned, a spirit which you alone appear to possess. This is perilous, the stuff of cults, OK? Strong words, but merited.

As for Oneness with God. You are perhaps referring to Christ's Oneness with the Father during His time in the world, rather than His time of going to the Father. That exposure example in light of Time compared to eternity, is more than one sided, but greatly askew and would be a complete misunderstanding of what is eternally true. And we "in Christ" have that eternally greater Oneness to look forward to, which Christ's earthly Oneness with the Father only pointed to.

And rather than defining biblical Oneness by worldly examples, we should instead be looking rather to the Father alone--which is where Christ went, in whom we are One. It is that Oneness of the Father that defines the Oneness that is to be. And what do the scriptures say of His oneness? Is God not omi-everything? Why then take the worldly examples and divide that which was to be as they were only for a time, times, and half a time?

Are you getting this? It is not what has been seen under the wrong circumstances that defines the Oneness of God, but the Oneness that the world has never known, and yet has been told of. This is what we are to believe.

As for Revelation and quoting--is that the way of God? Has that been the biblical precedence? Not at all--but mere fragments, "here a little, there a little" often not even in context, but claimed by the one sent. Anyway, one thing at a time. I am happy to refer to any of those things mentioned in any part of the scriptures that you would like. Meanwhile, thanks for the warning...but I am not reading into, but receiving unto. I claim nothing of my own.

 

[DanielConway]

OK, let me try to construct an argument this way. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice and they will never follow another". Now, unless the entire church up until you have been following another I have to be extremely dubious of any claim you make of new revelation. In all frankness your claims are so jarringly out of line with my and the historical Church's conventional reading of the text that I feel like I have to restate the essentials of the faith to be sure we at least have that in common. I know for a fact that I, you, and every human alive is a hopelessly wretched sinner that is incapable of looking past his or her own concerns except when we are enjoying a superabundance of what we perceive as rightly ours, be it wealth, prestige, power or sex, when in fact none of us rightly should be getting any consideration whatsoever. In fact we are all rightly deserving of being given over to the furnace for what we willfully chose to be in our first parents. That is the bad news and yes, it is very bad.
The Good and glorious news beyond believing except by a quickening act of God is that the Holy, Holy, Holy God whose presence we rationally flee from in our current state loves us beyond our ability to measure or comprehend and has made a way. He'll take it all, all the shit of our existence that we should get at our terminus and place it on his sinless, perfect and spiritually gorgouse Son at the cross, an eternity of torment, and deal with it there instead of on us if we'll have him as Lord and God. It goes beyond that in fact. We are not just rendered neutral by our act of re-aligning our loyalties to our rightful creator, but at the point of his resurrection we are given the status of Children of God and co-heirs of an eternity in conciously coherent bliss in a new creation that he is preparing for us that does not end. I don't know what our new society will be exactly like only that there will be no slights, intentional or otherwise, everyone's needs will be met and we will all be equal at the throne of our God and King, He who purchased us back from the kit of our great deceiver as an act of utterly unmerited Grace, UTTERLY UNMERITED. If you truly believe this your one of His and one of mine and I will take as much time as you wish to try to wrestle out our differences over secondary matters.