Friday, 23 March 2012

  • Christ: Physical and Spiritual through Eternity?

    Before you answer, consider this:

    God is spirit. Those who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth. John 4. We know that God is essentially unchangeable, Mal. 3:6; Psa. 102:27; Heb. 1:12.

    There was a time when, in order to save us -- to save those whom the Father gave, to be more precise -- the Son had to take upon Himself our physical nature, Heb. 2:13-15. It was necessary for Him, in the course of "fulfilling all righteousness", to obey perfectly and suffer accordingly in order to procure our salvation. This is why He also had to be resurrected physically. He showed and demonstrated His physical body to Thomas and others.

    But there was no need for Him to return physically. He returned in AD 70 in the same essence as He always was, as a King "eternal, immortal, invisible". The hymn is also to the point:

    "Immortal, invisible, God only wise, In light inaccessible hid from our eyes"

    For those who say that Christ is also, at this point in time and from this time onward, existing in a physical body, I would ask this question: Did He have this same body also before the Incarnation? Yes, there are Christophanies. But other than that?

    How about before recorded history?

    How about when there was only Trinity, self-communicating, self-loving? Was One of the Three physical then?

    I don't think anyone would say this. I hope not. But if they don't affirm this then they have another problem. In a very real and fundamental way God -- the unchangeable God -- has changed. Drastically.

    Does Jesus exist physically and spiritually today?  Has he always existed this way?  How do we know?

Comments (57)

  • Pickwick12@xanga

    I never knew until I went to college that anyone taught that Jesus is still in a physical body. I don't believe so at all, thought it's not a crucial salvation issue, of course.

  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    The Bible says that "In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was made flesh."

    The Bible also says that Jesus resurrected from the dead and then ascended into heaven. 

    So, according to the Bible, the Son of God did not have a body until he was born as Jesus. And that Jesus, that Son of God ascended into heaven in a body where he exists eternally with the Father.

  • asterisktom@xanga

    @Pickwick12@xanga - We must have been to different types of churches. I heard plenty of messages in Baptist churches, way back in the 70s, with the theme of "There is now a glorified human being, flesh and blood, seated in the heavenlies".

  • asterisktom@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Your first two facts are pure Bible. And I would say the others are too - except for that very last part. I don't believe you can find a verse that would back tyour contention that Christ now has a physical body, that He has anything so essentially different than what He had pre-incarnation.

    Something else to think about is the purpose for His Incarnation and His resurrection - and that of our resurrection. . These should also give us some answers - in line with Scripture - as to what type of body Christ has now.

    Christ's Resurrection and our resurrection
    They are actually two separate things, at least in several points. The  purpose for Christ's resurrection is several-fold: A demonstration of His acceptance with the Father, including an acceptance of His saving  mission on our behalf. Necessary to that mission would be His having  overcome as a Man all those enemies that had, up until then, doomed us. This is the reason both for His Incarnation and His physical resurrection.

    The redeemed do not have the same necessities laid upon them that their Redeemer did. He had to "fulfill all righteousness", undoing the disastrous effects of Adam's fall.

    But Christ has no necessity now in continuing on in the flesh, which is itself a limitation when compared to His perfect and eternal glory He had before the Incarnation.

    Flesh - or physical existence, however you would term it - brings with it certain limitations that are contrary to what we know of God: Omnipresence being just one of them. For Christ to have aphysical body - think about it - would require Him to be certain places, but not other places.

    God is One. I assume we all believe that God is still one. This, too, would be an eternal rift in the divine unity to have one being  physical/spiritual and the other Persons "merely" spiritual.

  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    @asterisktom@xanga - The Apostles Creed says as a statement of Christian faith that we await the resurrection of the dead. Christian theology holds that our physical bodies will resurrect when Jesus comes again.

    He resurrected from the dead. That means his spirit re-entered his body. Then in that body Jesus ascended into heaven. That is right out of the Bible. 

    What you are attempting to do is reason out an article of faith.  Since the article of faith (Jesus resurrecting and ascending in his body) is so clearly stated in the Bible, reason cannot explain it away.

    Further complicating your case is that resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven are beyond the realm of reason.

  • asterisktom@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - How right you are. These things are clearly beyond the reach of our reason. That is why we need to carefully hew to Scripture, even over other seemingly authoritative writings like the Apostles' (sic) Creed.

    Your first statements are right out of the Bible, yes. There is nothing there that I am trying to "explain away". But your assumption (of Christ having this body that He didn't have before) goes beyond what Scripture states. You are doing the same thing you think I am doing, using reason to explain something away.

    But we will leave it at that. You apparently believe in a Christ who is at this time physical (as well as spiritual). Just know that it is an article of faith born of post-Biblical Creeds, not the Bible itself.

  • Lovegrove@xanga

    @asterisktom@xanga - The bible itself is a "post-biblical creed" if you get my drift.

  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    @asterisktom@xanga - I don't understand how I can be assuming anything when the Bible is clear about Jesus ascending in his body. He was talking to his disciples. He wished them farewell, gave them encouragement and then he ascended. 

    According to Scripture, Jesus ascended in the same body that was crucified. It had all the scars. He was among his disciples for 40 days in his resurrected body, the one that was crucified and came out of the crypt.
  • asterisktom@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I agree with every single thing you have just written about Christ.

    But those facts do not tell us anything about Christ today. And, as I pointed out in the article, there are serious problems with this position.

    Why do you assume that Christ has to hold onto His Incarnational body well after there was any purpose for it? What purpose is there, post-ascension, for Christ to still be physical?

  • asterisktom@xanga

    @Lovegrove@xanga - I catch your drift. I think I do. And if I am correct, then I disagree. But feel free to clarify.

  • Lovegrove@xanga

    @asterisktom@xanga - It is an anthology of a limited number of hearsay reports and discussion of said reports, written long after the events portrayed and took centuries before said limited number of reports, disagreement existign over just what should be included, was selected and assembled then declared holy writ.
    Produced long after the "biblical" times it portrays. I was only considering the New Testament..

    For Protestantism particularly, Christianity really is a religion of the book.

  • asterisktom@xanga

    @Lovegrove@xanga - OK. Thanks.

    I disagree, of course.

    BTW, who is your avatar guy? He looks like he came from a cigar box.

  • Lovegrove@xanga

    Why "of course"? All I did was relate a potted history of events. Do you hold that it came down on a cushion from on high?

    The "God intoxicated" man. And yours, what box did you get that from?

  • asterisktom@xanga

    @Lovegrove@xanga -  Oh come on. Don't be prickly. Lighten up. The "of course" comes from just reading the article. Yes, I do have a higher view of inspiration.

  • Lovegrove@xanga

    @asterisktom@xanga - I responded in kind. Take what you give.

    Do you reject the history of events entirely as false or just that it is unimportant?

  • Captric@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - The bible also says that you are to stone your children to death for disobeying you and that you should kill your neighbors if they believe in another religion. The bible also says that man and earth were created in 6 days and hell is at the center of the earth. The bible also says the entire world was flooded and Noah built a boat larger than the largest aircraft carrier we have in existence today and he built it by hand and out of wood. Then ALL of the animals from ALL over the world WALKED to this boat in pairs - and were saved - after it rained 40 days and nights - which is hardly enough to fill a farm pond.

  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    @asterisktom@xanga - Purpose is the concern of the designer.  And human beings have no idea of God's complete purpose for things. We only know that God sent Jesus as the culmination of his plan of salvation for mankind.

    Just because we are not privy to God's complete purpose doesn't mean that there isn't one. And just because we can't figure out why Jesus would take his body to heaven doesn't mean it isn't there.

    Nevertheless, the Bible is clear: Jesus took his mortal body to heaven. We can't know more than that or detract from that because it doesn't make any sense to us.
  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    @Captric@xanga - The Bible has its own meaning. That means if you want to know what the Bible means you have to consult an institution or scholar who has the authority to teach that meaning.

    It is not for individuals to arbitrarily assign meaning to any written document because that meaning has already been assigned to it by its author or authors.

  • Captric@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Really??? Is that what your fictional Jesus taught? And what makes an authority on the Bible an authority? Does he have a license issued by god? This is the trouble with religion - shamans and snake oil salesman selling to the ignorant - a notion that that they will live forever if they only accept a Jewish Zombie as their master. That may work for little children who are devoid of critical thinking skills or the mentally ill but it does not work for the other 95% of teh population of planet earth. 

    How much does and "authority on the the Bible make each year and where does his income come from? Where does he pay taxes on that income in order to support the roads that lead to his place of business?
  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    @Captric@xanga - What I said in my comment is a fact. If you don't accept facts then you don't have the capacity to be rational.

  • Captric@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - You are accusing me of not being rational when you are the one who participates in a bloody ceremony that involves eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a Jewish Zombie? Now that is the irony of the day.

    My non beliefs are not on trial here --- yours are. show me how YOU are an "AUTHORITY" on the bible and Christianity and WHO gave you that authority. I am waiting breathlessly!!
  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    @Captric@xanga - All I have done where you are concerned is inform you that only the author of written material can assign meaning to his work.

    Your original comment had to do with aspects of ancient Middle Eastern culture and the way you erroneously assigned your own meaning to them.

    In your latest comment you make erroneous statements about articles of Christian faith.

    In both cases you are erroneous because you don't get to assign meaning to verifiable facts nor do you get to assign your own meaning to a religious faith that already has its own meaning.

  • Captric@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Ummmm - no you are wrong and it is not YOU and your christian ilk who get to assign the word "fact" or "truth" to anything without first being peer reviewed and ACTUALLY verified. This is how REAL facts are discovered and you will not be allowed to redefine the word.

    Religions have for thousands of years allowed shamans and people with charismatic personalities to assign their own titles of "authority" to themselves. In this country and with this scientific media you willnot be allowed to push ignorance and mythology as fact and truth without criticism.
  • sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga

    @Captric@xanga - It is a real fact that authors assign meaning to their own work. Concerning Judeo-Christianity, it is a tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation for over 3000 years. 

    Consequently, it is completely absurd for a modern person to redefine it according to his own personal disbelief.
  • Captric@xanga

    @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Ridiculous - so what are you going to do  - go back in time in ask the various authors who contributed to the stories in the bible over a period of several hundred years in various languages what they REALLY meant to say????

    What we know as fact is that the stories have been written in various ancient languages  - none of them English - and reinterpreted and re translated thousands of times over the last 2000 years. In addition to that there are hundreds of different versions of the Bible at least THREE of which are in existence today and all fundamentally different!
  • Sign in to Comment

  • Give eProps (?)

About the Author

  • asterisktom@xanga
    • From: asterisktom@xanga
    • Name: Tom Riggle
    • Location: Wichita, Kansas, United States
    • About Me: I rejoice in my Savior and in all the riches of His grace. Unmerited, unlooked-for, unexpected...Hallelujah! Oh, and "soon" meant "soon", and "kingdom" means "Kingdom".
    Stats: This Week All Time
    Posts: 0 13
    Views: 0 11780
    Comments: 0 199
    View all posts by asterisktom@xanga

Who recommended?