The Great Apostasy

[Enoch111]

And yet the complete details should come to light at the end. Check your watch.

Scott,
You are simply misinterpreting the Scriptures under discussion. We are to take Scripture in its plain literal sense, otherwise it become nonsense.

 

[CoreIssue]

But you have it backwards.

Which is more "literal", the world or the kingdom? But here you assume that a return in terms of the world is what is literal...even when Christ has said, "the world sees me no more." And which is His glory, what is manifest in the world and in the flesh, or in the spirit? Surely, you have every good reason not to believe that He will return again in the manner of the lowly world, and every reason to believe that He will return high and lifted up, which is in the glory of the kingdom of God whom is spirit.

So I have told you why Paul actually reassured them, because the flesh comes first and they had not missed anything, but should rather be looking for Christ's return "as He is." This is "spirit and truth."

As for the falling away, Paul was referring to their current status as being born of the flesh since Adam - which indeed, comes first. Yes, the fall has been since the beginning.

The Bible says Christ will return as he left. He went up in the flesh. He will return in the flesh.

For he also said when he left he would send the comforter in his place but he would not be back until he returned as he left.

You're talking about is operation in our lives through the Holy Spirit, not himself here on the earth.

But as he said the comforter, meaning the Holy Spirit, could not come in a new way until he left. Likewise, he cannot return until the Holy Spirit leaves, which is what happens in the rapture.

No born again in the Trib and MK. No mention of the Holy Spirit in any trib or MK verse. No mention of the church either. No mention of Christians.

But there's plenty of mention of a new Stone Temple, Israeli priesthood, Israel, 12 tribes, law and more.

 

[ScottA]

Scott,
You are simply misinterpreting the Scriptures under discussion. We are to take Scripture in its plain literal sense, otherwise it become nonsense.

So you say.

But I am not interpreting, except in spirit...which is the process told to us by Paul. Whom confessed that he himself spoke in tongues, saying that when we come together, "If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret." Thus, if these things we now read are not understood the way that he spoke them, then he has spoken them in tongues, but with instructions, that the church might be edified.

So, if you do not agree with me, then do not agree. But since you have already spoken against the instructions given to the church, saying that Paul spoke in a "plain literal sense" against what he himself confessed, you advocate "speaking into the air", which Paul warned about.

 

[ScottA]

The Bible says Christ will return as he left. He went up in the flesh. He will return in the flesh.

For he also said when he left he would send the comforter in his place but he would not be back until he returned as he left.

You're talking about is operation in our lives through the Holy Spirit, not himself here on the earth.

But as he said the comforter, meaning the Holy Spirit, could not come in a new way until he left. Likewise, he cannot return until the Holy Spirit leaves, which is what happens in the rapture.

No born again in the Trib and MK. No mention of the Holy Spirit in any trib or MK verse. No mention of the church either. No mention of Christians.

But there's plenty of mention of a new Stone Temple, Israeli priesthood, Israel, 12 tribes, law and more.

Your words are filled with error from the start.

The angel of the Lord did not say Jesus would return in the flesh, but "in like manner." Which apparently you do not understand because you have not considered what Jesus said of the Spirit, that it cannot be seen. So, now are you saying that Jesus is not "born of the Spirit" because those who saw Him ascend saw His flesh and not His spirit? Apparently.

If all you see is the flesh, then I would counsel you to stop where the flesh stops. In which case, you would not have anything to say of the Spirit - nor should you.

On the other hand, if you do in fact know Christ in spirit - get with the program. God is spirit.

 

[CoreIssue]

Your words are filled with error from the start.

The angel of the Lord did not say Jesus would return in the flesh, but "in like manner." Which apparently you do not understand because you have not considered what Jesus said of the Spirit, that it cannot be seen. So, now are you saying that Jesus is not "born of the Spirit" because those who saw Him ascend saw His flesh and not His spirit? Apparently.

If all you see is the flesh, then I would counsel you to stop where the flesh stops. In which case, you would not have anything to say of the Spirit - nor should you.

On the other hand, if you do in fact know Christ in spirit - get with the program. God is spirit.

Acts 1:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

like manner has always meant the same way, not something completely different as you are saying.

 

[bbyrd009]

That is a compassionate notion, but even babes are born out of sin or of righteousness, and there is only One begotten of righteousness.

i didn't mean to say the argument couldn't be made, just that a closer look reveals that it isn't the Absolute Truth we make it out to be in our minds.

There are many chronological adults alive today who have never sinned, and will never sin because they cannot sin.

 

[ScottA]

Acts 1:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

like manner has always meant the same way, not something completely different as you are saying.

Your translation is failing you.

The angel of the Lord even addresses the men of Galilee with the idea that it would be ridiculous to expect to look up and actually see. Thus, the "like manner" which has been "taken away" from your translation is not all that was said and meant...but your translation has only left you with only part of the information.

Still, "why are you looking into the sky" for what cannot be seen?

 

[ScottA]

i didn't mean to say the argument couldn't be made, just that a closer look reveals that it isn't the Absolute Truth we make it out to be in our minds.

There are many chronological adults alive today who have never sinned, and will never sin because they cannot sin.

Yet, if they were born of a fox and not a dove, they are a fox.

That is not to say, that God does not have a provision for them - because He does. Nonetheless, a fox is still a fox and it is still correct to say "all have sinned."

 

[CoreIssue]

Your translation is failing you.

The angel of the Lord even addresses the men of Galilee with the idea that it would be ridiculous to expect to look up and actually see. Thus, the "like manner" which has been "taken away" from your translation is not all that was said and meant...but your translation has only left you with only part of the information.

Still, "why are you looking into the sky" for what cannot be seen?

I disagree. You are claiming information that was never given.

 

[ScottA]

I disagree. You are claiming information that was never given.

I quoted Jesus and the angel of the Lord. If that information was not given to you, fine.

 

[CoreIssue]

I quoted Jesus and the angel of the Lord. If that information was not given to you, fine.

Once again, it says he will return as he departed. And you never quoted Jesus.

Acts 1:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

 

[ScottA]

Once again, it says he will return as he departed. And you never quoted Jesus.

Acts 1:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Pay attention. I quoted Jesus in post #44.

So...you are missing information. You are going to have to do better.

I guess then that you also missed that I explained that returning "in like manner" does not mean in the flesh, but rather in the spirit. "The like manner" was a matter of the kingdom, of God - God is spirit. Jesus did not commit His flesh to the Father, but His spirit - that is "the like manner." It is also what is meant by "follow Me."

As I said, get with the program. “Why do you stand here looking into the sky?" God is spirit.

 

[Nancy]

Your translation is failing you.

The angel of the Lord even addresses the men of Galilee with the idea that it would be ridiculous to expect to look up and actually see. Thus, the "like manner" which has been "taken away" from your translation is not all that was said and meant...but your translation has only left you with only part of the information.

Still, "why are you looking into the sky" for what cannot be seen?

"Still, "why are you looking into the sky" for what cannot be seen?"

"... This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
So, does "seen" not really mean "seen"??

 

[ScottA]

"Still, "why are you looking into the sky" for what cannot be seen?"

"... This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
So, does "seen" not really mean "seen"??

The word is defined as: "to behold, look upon, view attentively, contemplate."

However, and not to be taken lightly, that part of their comment was prefaced with "Why are you gazing...?" It does not stand to reason that if what they had "seen" would actually tell them anything, that the angels would have questioned them for doing it. I would suggest that their question makes what they had seen, a moot point, and that the answer lies rather in their comment of "like manner." Which, then, Jesus being the likeness of the Father whom is spirit...does not indicate a return in any other likeness, such as that of a man. In other words, Jesus came the first time in the likeness of a man, but His return would not be of that likeness, but of the likeness which He had become by being the First born of the spirit of God.

But the caution here, as it was with Lot, is not to look back.

 

[Nancy]

The word is defined as: "to behold, look upon, view attentively, contemplate."

However, and not to be taken lightly, that part of their comment was prefaced with "Why are you gazing...?" It does not stand to reason that if what they had "seen" would actually tell them anything, that the angels would have questioned them for doing it. I would suggest that their question makes what they had seen, a moot point, and that the answer lies rather in their comment of "like manner." Which, then, Jesus being the likeness of the Father whom is spirit...does not indicate a return in any other likeness, such as that of a man. In other words, Jesus came the first time in the likeness of a man, but His return would not be of that likeness, but of the likeness which He had become by being the First born of the spirit of God.

But the caution here, as it was with Lot, is not to look back.

I'm sorry Scott, but I have a hard time following your "logic"?

 

[ScottA]

I'm sorry Scott, but I have a hard time following your "logic"?

That moment was the very point when men should have stopped looking at the flesh and the things of the world, and started to look to the spiritual kingdom of God. But they didn't, and most still don't.

Do you not get the logic of that great transition that was to save us, that "what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is spirit?"

 

[Nancy]

That moment was the very point when men should have stopped looking at the flesh and the things of the world, and started to look to the spiritual kingdom of God. But they didn't, and most still don't.

Do you not get the logic of that great transition that was to save us, that "what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is spirit?"

Jesus was in His Glorified body when they "gazed,saw, watched" Him ascend. Jesus was in His glorified body when He told Thomas to put his very fleshy hand into his wounds. That is not saying that Jesus is not Spirit! You and I are spirits living in mortal bodies. Once we are free from the mortal and put on the immortal, we shall see His kingdom with spiritual eyes.

 

[ScottA]

Jesus was in His Glorified body when they "gazed,saw, watched" Him ascend. Jesus was in His glorified body when He told Thomas to put his very fleshy hand into his wounds. That is not saying that Jesus is not Spirit! You and I are spirits living in mortal bodies. Once we are free from the mortal and put on the immortal, we shall see His kingdom with spiritual eyes.

No...that is the teachings of men.

Jesus was NOT in His "glorified body", that is a non-biblical term. He was in His resurrected body.

And, no, if we are in Christ, we are not spirits living in mortal bodies...it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us - to live is Christ. In which case, it is apparent that you have not put on that immortal (which is Christ) yet, but are in slumber...or Christ in you would testify of it.

 

[Nancy]

No...that is the teachings of men.

Jesus was NOT in His "glorified body", that is a non-biblical term. He was in His resurrected body.

And, no, if we are in Christ, we are not spirits living in mortal bodies...it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us - to live is Christ. In which case, it is apparent that you have not put on that immortal (which is Christ) yet, but are in slumber...or Christ in you would testify of it.

This was spoken by St. Thomas Aquinas, and I tend to agree with what he say's.

"I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.

[summa theologica part 3 question 54 article 3 ]( SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The quality of Christ rising again (Tertia Pars, Q. 54))

One good, convincing point St Thomas makes is that in no way could one consider Jesus' body given to corruption after His resurrection. He did as He chose. He came and went as He pleased. He appeared in the manner which He desired."
Was Jesus' resurrected body the same as his glorified body that he now has in heaven?

 

[CoreIssue]

No...that is the teachings of men.

Jesus was NOT in His "glorified body", that is a non-biblical term. He was in His resurrected body.

And, no, if we are in Christ, we are not spirits living in mortal bodies...it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us - to live is Christ. In which case, it is apparent that you have not put on that immortal (which is Christ) yet, but are in slumber...or Christ in you would testify of it.

So the Bible is the teachings of men when it disagrees with you but the teachings of God when it agrees.

Very Gnostic of you.