Glorified Flesh?

[mfblume]

Leaping to conclusions and missing a greater and overall point.

We were told these words recently ...

He was buried according to scripture and was resurrected the third day also according to scripture. If God’s spirit didn’t fill that VESSEL it would be nothing! To say the flesh exists today, you’ll have to believe that there are 2 gods, and that all things have not been fulfilled.

The idea here assumes that when Jesus died, the Spirit left the body, as though there is no purpose for God's Spirit to indwell that body any more, since the sacrifice was accomplished. This assumes all that the body was required to accomplish was provide a sinless sacrifice. There is no concept in this view that God will man rule the world in immortality as Adam would have done had he not fallen. Perhaps people think Jesus was only manifest as a human being for two things... provision of a sacrifice as well as be and Adam so that as old Adam caused many to be sinners, then new Adam causes many to be righteous. That is part of it, but still falls short. He is last Adam moreso for the purpose of there being an immortal man ruling over earth, which he shall accomplish after the resurrection. We rule with him now as kings and priests. But this shall continue in a magnified manner after the resurrection.

It also assumes that the body was visibly shown to disciples to show that He did die and fulfilled the purpose of the flesh. But that is simply erroneous. He resurrected to do far more than show anybody he actually died via the presentation of nail wounds and spear wound. That HUMMAN had to enter the holiest of Heaven as high priest and make atonement, where Hebrews 9 says was HEAVEN. And that HUMAN had to sit down and rule over earth as LAST MAN, which the first failed to do.


So, to say that there are two gods after the resurrection if the flesh of Jesus is immortal, because that somehow tells us that all things were not fulfilled, is a huge leap that is illogical and based on nothing in the bible. You have to assume the flesh of Christ will not exist after the sacrifice allegedly has been fulfilled, as though that was all that the body was for, in order to make this secondary assumption that it determines how many gods there are. No where does the bible teach that the death is the fulfilment of the purpose of the incarnation. That is something that has been assumed and made up, but is simply not found in scripture. It sounds good, but it's laid out in scripture.

So, since the bible DOES NOT SAY that after the purpose of the flesh dying on the cross the flesh is not longer needed, therefore, one believes in two gods if one thinks the flesh continues, is simply wild conjecture.

Oneness is not determined by whether or not the flesh has served its purpose. It is determined by how many persons are in the godhead. If God was one while manifested in flesh and at the same time His same singular person filled the universe as the Father, then if the flesh becomes immortal (as it did after the resurrection -- never to die again, according to Romans 6:9) and it is the same person manifested in it as is the Omnipresent SPpirit filling the universe, THAT IS ONENESS.

The fact about whether or the flesh was fulfilled in its purpose HAS NOTHING to do with Oneness. Oneness is not about the PURPOSE of flesh, but Who it is that manifests Himself through that flesh.

So, the basis of what oneness is all about has been compromised by this new-fangled idea that actually is unrelated to what determines oneness.

You can’t separate Jesus (spirit) from the God (spirit) they were one spirit; Gods spirit, the flesh was an instrument that obtained its purpose.

This, again, has nothing to do with manifesting in flesh before the cross or after the cross. God's Spirit and Jesus are one Spirit, and not just in unity. They are absolutely one in every way. That was the case before the cross and after the cross. Flesh had nothing to do with it before the cross or after the cross. Manifesting in flesh after the cross in no way changed that oneness than it did before the cross.

Why does God have to come back again? His word was fulfilled in 70 A.D, Jerusalem (Earth) and the Temple (Heaven) was destroyed for their wickedness. And the prophecy of Jesus came to pass (Matthew 24:34) that they’re we’re indeed some that heard the words of Jesus and saw the destruction and end of the world (age).

1 Cor 15 has not been fulfulled yet, as Paul looked in HIS FUTURE to a resurrection of the very thing that was dead with us.

Paul said it quite plainly.

1 Corinthians 15:35-36.. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? ..(36).. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Our bodies are the part of us that die as believers, and are, therefore, the part of us that are quickened, or resurrected and made alive again.

This has not happened yet to this day since Paul's day, past AD70 and on to today. And the entire basis for Jesus' resurrection is our resurrection. This informs us that if resurrection for us is of our bodies, and ours is the basis for His, and he would not have risen had it not been for the purpose of seeing us resurrect, then His physical resurrection furthermore establishes the fact that our bodies shall physically rise.

His is the firstfruits of ours, and not in visibility of showcase alone, without being first in numerical sequence in identical manner as His. Firstfruits means first of identicals to follow. His is the prototype, so to speak, of ours.

Third Epistle of John written after 70 A.D destruction (lllJohn 1:2) “....prosper, and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” Instead of looking for a futuristic return of Jesus, we should (I’m not implying you don’t) be encountering church to reach for souls, to drive deeper into the spirit of God, be not yoked with this world, separate yourself with the spirits of this world, etc..

Reaching out for souls to be saved, and seeking a deeper relationship with Jesus is not abrogated just because one believes in a literal physical return of Jesus.

Please understand, I’m only going to say the following from what I have seen, I’m not saying this is everyone. The futuristic message births a spirit of complacency, fear, doubt. People ask me “why are so many leaving the church, young especially” look at what these young people have been fed the past 1-30 years, has it been what Paul declared in (l Corinthians 2:4) “And my speech, and my preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power.” We had enough enticing words, mans wisdom, we need the spirit and power.

This is another grand leap of illogic with no basis in scripture saying that belief in a physical return of Jesus causes one to grow complacent and not reach out to souls, as if it is some infatuation with the physical. Belief in a second coming of Jesus in a physical body is not being carnal or fleshly like this writer assumes so illogically. He makes connects that are illogical and unfounded in scripture, based on what he has "seen" without getting that thought from the Bible itself. It's like he saw carnal believers who are complacent and believe in a literal physical return of Jesus, and did not realize there are carnal believers who are complacent and don't believe in a literal physical return of Jesus.

It's like this writer's whole world of doctrine is based on assumptions he made up in his mind without biblical foundation, and making loose connections that the Word itself never made.

And this false concept of NATURAL being PHYSICAL, missed so easily by not looking at all instances of the use of the term in the rest of the Bible, is a basis for this erring belief.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

That's another good explanation, taking into account that what follows to that is a description of persecution.

Especially when reading the details of the connection between martyrdom and resurrection that this verse made:

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

[mfblume]

Flesh and Spirit are warring against each other, we understand that, the body of God is not a trophy, it was a vessel that’s all, sorry I don’t have scripture for that, you should have enough understand to believe that, our bodies are not trophies, the spirit within us is a trophy. Our spirits in the heavenly realm will not be our bodies on earth, they’re going to be something totally different, the seed looks NOTHING like the plant.

The body is what a part of man actually is. A human being is spirit, soul and body. Sure, they're containers and vessels, but a necessary one since God made humans to have them. And that will continue to eternity future with Christ because God willed for humanity to rule the world and first Adam failed, but God's will never changed from that first plan, and it shall be fulfilled with Christ as the Last man Adam.

It's all about the kingdom, and these folks have never grasped the kingdom aspect of it all.

This is not meant to hold the body as a trophy, but for God to manifest through humanity and rule this world in a more perfect way than He would have done so through Adam. Human spirits in the heavenly realm are not meant to stay in the heavenly realm, but to come back in a resurrection with Christ and rule this earth in immortal bodies. Bodies are our means of influencing the physical universe, and this physical universe is not passing away, as this writer seems to understand in saying heaven and earth passing away speak of the old covenant system and temple passing away. Yet there is no reason why the physical universe will continue in his doctrine.

[mfblume]

More unfounded assumptions...

You through this body are separating one into two, you use (John 8:35), to prove what Jesus the son (human form) abides forever, where is God in the spirit or should I ask what is Jesus in the spirit realm? You quote (lCorinthians 15) as well as I do, but is that for Jesus, or is that for us. Remember, we desire the resurrection, he IS the resurrection (John 11:25). We need a body, you desire that as a sinner desires the Holy Ghost, why do you need this body, because if there is no body, that means.....

Paul spoke of desiring the resurrection because God made us to have immortal bodies, not mortal ones, and to not remain naked outside a body in spirit and soul.

2 Corinthians 5:1-3.. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. ..(2).. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: ..(3).. If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

So, yes, we groan to have an immortal body in a resurrection. But, not because it's a fleshly desire. It's very spiritual, for in this mortal body also exists sin, and we are as it were in a lions den when in this body with sin as the lions. And it is a constant fight of faith to ensure sin does not devour us, but that we keep flesh under so sin cannot rise.

2 Corinthians 5:4.. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Paul said this desire to be clothed with a house not made with hands, but a spiritual physical body that death has no more dominion over it, because this tabernalce/tent of a mortal body is subject to sin and death. THAT is what makes us tormented. A spiritual body empowered by Spirit instead of natural life, like Jesus' body from the tomb, is not indwelt by sin. and the ravages of death like sickness.

And Paul went beyond this being a desire of believers like himself, when he finished off the 15th chapter of 1 Cor. by saying this swallowing up of life is precsiely the purpose of the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:54.. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

[mfblume]

Furthermore, if the only purpose of the flesh was to die as a sacrifice for mankind, because animal sacrifices could not cut it, then why have the body resurrect? Why show the disciples that it was not a spirit but genuine flesh and bones, not flesh and blood? Why bother with resurrection at all?

God did not trash his idea to have physical man rule the world. He is a Spirit and the world is not spirit, but is physical. In order to create a universe and work with it, God had to have a man in his image who is both spiritual and physical, and indwell his spirit and manifest through his body and thereby influence the world.

Without indwelling human bodies of believers, there is no point to a physical universe. A trophy???? Hardly! God will manifest through redeemed immortal human beings for forever-future as He intended with Adam who failed. Even dispies who believe in a literal new heaven and earth at least see more to this physical universe than nice skies to look at forever.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Looking at the topic being defended there, I see that: the point was that if there is not resurrection then several things would lack any sense, those being:

- preaching is vain
- faith is vain
- we are still in our sins (if he didn't raise then, his dead wasn't expiatory, for he simply died like any other man)
- we would be the most miserable (suffering persecution for nothing as he extends in verse 30-32)

In this context, I believe the "dead" here means Christ death and our death in baptism: the whole concept of "death" associated with baptism. I understand that "they" is referring to the same "they that are Christ's" (v 23). What I get in the passage is that Paul is strongly saying: there is no entering into the manifested kingdom of God (future aspect of salvation) without resurrection, and there is no resurrection unless you are baptized into Christ death for the remission of sins, where you also die. If there is not resurrection, then why being baptized into his death? Or more: if Christ didn't raise, how do we have the testimony and sign from God that his death was in fact expiatory for our sins? That was the sign left to the world that this is the real deal; that we should not look anywhere else to be saved.

Paul is definitely making all of this as an inseparable thing: resurrection being a core component in the salvation, there is no entering in heaven without resurrection, and if the dead doesn't raise then, in Paul's mind, everything else we do or preach is nonsense.

Those are my thoughts. So I agree with you, but also I think Paul used a more general phrase for the whole relationship between baptism and dead. There is also a rhetorical component here by the repetition of the word nekros (dead) so many times in the passage (14 times).

That or Paul was just contradicting the "there is no resurrection" people because they used to baptize on behalf of the dead even though they didn't believe in the resurrection (and "they" means those guys). This position needs a lot of historical context to prove that those that believe in no resurrection were in fact also people that practiced baptism on behalf of the dead. I haven't even looked into it.

Originally Posted by mfblume

(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Paul furthers his argument for a resurrection of the believers by asking people what other purpose would there be for baptism for the dead if believers are not going to resurrect.

Some scholars claim that this is the most difficult verse in the entire New Testament.

Paul referred to the death of Jesus Christ, into which we enter by water baptism, and the term also referred to the experience of death when a believer is martyred, when he wrote the phrase, “baptized for the dead.”

This same apostle explained, in His Epistle to the Romans, that baptism into Jesus Christ’s death causes us to be one of those who rise to walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:3-5 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Water baptism, which I believe Romans 6:3 is clearly speaking about, puts us into the death of Jesus Christ by faith. It’s not baptism only, though, but faith coupled with baptism. It is for the purpose of seeing us rise to walk in newness of life just as Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Paul clearly wrote about a spiritual resurrection in this chapter in association with baptism. Therefore, the mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15 refers to this truth. Resurrection is the goal and purpose of baptism into Christ’s death.

In Romans Chapter 6, Paul clearly spoke about a non-physical resurrection. When we read through until verse 13, Romans 6 informs us that those baptized into Christ’s death are meant to walk in the resurrection of newness of life, which is the reason we yield ourselves to God as those alive from the dead, afterward.

Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Therefore, in this instance of 1 Corinthians 15’s reference to baptism for the dead, Paul supported the principle of resurrection from the dead. By having referred to baptism, which is known to bring us into a spiritual resurrection, there are also the words of Jesus that indicate that another form of baptism that is apart from water but, nonetheless, promises a physical resurrection.

Matthew 20:21-23 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. (22) But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Jesus’ reference to baptism in this passage is actually speaking about death. It refers to being killed as a martyr.

Paul wrote about the hope of a resurrection after this life in the Book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

People who became believers in Paul’s day during the heavy persecution of the church did not do so blindly, without having known what dangers they entered. They knew that they risked their lives. Hence, when they got baptized, they really did accept both a spiritual death of the old man, as well as loss of physical life in death because they believed in a physical resurrection. People would not risk their lives by becoming believers in Christ if they weren’t willing to give their lives in death upon their baptisms.

Originally Posted by coksiw

That's another good explanation, taking into account that what follows to that is a description of persecution.

Glad to see I'm not alone in how that passage struck me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Furthermore, if the only purpose of the flesh was to die as a sacrifice for mankind, because animal sacrifices could not cut it, then why have the body resurrect? Why show the disciples that it was not a spirit but genuine flesh and bones, not flesh and blood? Why bother with resurrection at all?

God did not trash his idea to have physical man rule the world. He is a Spirit and the world is not spirit, but is physical. In order to create a universe and work with it, God had to have a man in his image who is both spiritual and physical, and indwell his spirit and manifest through his body and thereby influence the world.

Without indwelling human bodies of believers, there is no point to a physical universe. A trophy???? Hardly! God will manifest through redeemed immortal human beings for forever-future as He intended with Adam who failed. Even dispies who believe in a literal new heaven and earth at least see more to this physical universe than nice skies to look at forever.

It seems that theory that some have cheapens the Lord's existence. "God in a skin-suit" kind of like MTD's logos space-suit idea.

"Why did God incarnate?"

The answer is far more comprehensive than "just to die as a sacrifice." God's truth goes much deeper than the theological kiddie pool some seem content to splash around in. God made man in His own image, it was His intention from the beginning to manifest Himself, to have sons (and daughters) that would be like Him, to bear His likeness and reflect His glory. Adam failed to live up to the high calling, so God showed us Himself how it's done and what it looks like. And in doing so as the Second Adam, succeeding where the first man failed, He reversed the Curse and became our head, whose likeness we are to bear.

He took on Him, not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, a Hebrew, as the archetypal promised seed of which Isaac was a shadow. He is the Son of David, Messiah, king and priest like Melchizedec, anointed ruler of Israel and the Desire of all nations. "God became human so man might become divine" is a true saying.

The sacrificial aspect is but ONE aspect of the depth and height and width of the glorious riches of Redemption and Salvation. His death provides the justification for all that God has planned for His people. It opens the door for us to have access to the promises by which we partake of the divine nature.

To say "the only purpose for God's disposable skin-suit was to die" is just incredibly shallow and seems to me to denigrate the Son of God. Which, according to John, would indicate the spirit of antichrist. Glory goes toward God only inasmuch as it is given to the Son. Any denigration of the Son is in fact a denigration of God. To have the Son is to have God. THIS is what "oneness" is about. THIS is why we are derogatively called "Jesus ONLY". It's all in JESUS CHRIST, it's ALL in HIM.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It seems that theory that some have cheapens the Lord's existence. "God in a skin-suit" kind of like MTD's logos space-suit idea.

"Why did God incarnate?"

The answer is far more comprehensive than "just to die as a sacrifice." God's truth goes much deeper than the theological kiddie pool some seem content to splash around in. God made man in His own image, it was His intention from the beginning to manifest Himself, to have sons (and daughters) that would be like Him, to bear His likeness and reflect His glory. Adam failed to live up to the high calling, so God showed us Himself how it's done and what it looks like. And in doing so as the Second Adam, succeeding where the first man failed, He reversed the Curse and became our head, whose likeness we are to bear.

He took on Him, not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, a Hebrew, as the archetypal promised seed of which Isaac was a shadow. He is the Son of David, Messiah, king and priest like Melchizedec, anointed ruler of Israel and the Desire of all nations. "God became human so man might become divine" is a true saying.

The sacrificial aspect is but ONE aspect of the depth and height and width of the glorious riches of Redemption and Salvation. His death provides the justification for all that God has planned for His people. It opens the door for us to have access to the promises by which we partake of the divine nature.

To say "the only purpose for God's disposable skin-suit was to die" is just incredibly shallow and seems to me to denigrate the Son of God. Which, according to John, would indicate the spirit of antichrist. Glory goes toward God only inasmuch as it is given to the Son. Any denigration of the Son is in fact a denigration of God. To have the Son is to have God. THIS is what "oneness" is about. THIS is why we are derogatively called "Jesus ONLY". It's all in JESUS CHRIST, it's ALL in HIM.

Slam-dunk!

[coksiw]

Esaias,
Another important information that it is missing in the English translations is that “dead” in the “baptized for the dead” is actually plural, so it can’t refer to Christ’s death alone.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think you are making an unwarranted leap here. The context shows "the days of His flesh" is referring to the time in the Garden prior to His arrest. In any event, in the days of His flesh does not require He has days with no flesh. It means rather when He lived as a mortal man, subject to the limitations of "flesh". Flesh as used in Scripture doesn't solely mean physical body. It rather is a generic term for human beings. "The God of all flesh" doesn't mean the God of all physical bodies, it means the God of all mankind.

Since we know he had a material body after His resurrection, since Paul said the body is resurrected as a spiritual body, and since the Bible says absolutely nothing about a change in His nature AFTER He resurrected, we can conclude that "in the days of His flesh" doesn't mean He now no longer has a personal body.

And furthermore, if in the days of His flesh requires He had days without flesh, those days without flesh need not be after His resurrection or ascension, but could very well be the days BEFORE His incarnation. Thus, His prayers occurred AFTER He incarnated, and not before, thus this passage is actually yet another blow to trinitarianism and binitarianism.

In any event, there is nothing in Scripture that says Jesus has no personal body, nor are there any passages that require that to be so, and there are numerous passages which DO require Him to still be human with a body.

I do not think the "leap" as it were, is unwarranted. Here is how:

Referring back to my comments regarding 1 Corinthians 15:45, wherein we are informed that, while the first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. You will note that in the KJV, "was made" in the second clause is in italics. This is because in Greek, the verb is not repeated twice; rather it is twice applied, first to the first Adam, then to the last Adam.

You can see it clearly here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_c...ians/15-45.htm

Also at the link, you can see that the verb translated as "was made" in the first clause is egeneto, from ginomai.

This is very important to note, because it's the same verb in the same grammatical case as used by John in John 1:14 regarding how the "Word was made flesh".

See here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-14.htm

So then, the Logos was made flesh according to John. This occurred at the Incarnation inside Mary's womb. From that moment forward, Christ was living in the "days of His flesh" from Hebrews 5:7.

But sometime after His death, burial, and resurrection, and I would argue, ascension, this last Adam (and note the name Adam is from Hebrew and simply means "human"; see here: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/120.htm) "was made" a quickening spirit.

It was a transition, first, from spirit as Logos to flesh, then as Logos as flesh, to spirit.

If we genuinely believe the Logos was made into a true, physical, human man, then it stands to good reason that this true, physical, human man, was likewise made into a quickening spirit.

And spirits do not have flesh and bone, per the Lord Jesus in Luke 24:39.

Seems like case closed, to me.