1 Th 4 - 5

[Douglas]

Hi L2J,

Good to hear from you brother, and no need to be sorry about taking time. Life is full of challenges. I will try to do my best to answer your questions, but I will reiterate that this view that I propose is only a suggestion to consider and take or leave it as one feels it is correct or not. I have not landed on any eschatological position that I feel fully describes all the data that the Bible presents us with, and therefore I continue to search and study and pray and maintain a teachable spirit in regards to all things.

Your first point regarding 1 John 3:2 and 1 John 2:28 in regards to His appearing being at the Second coming of Christ I would agree with.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in Him, that when[a] He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.

But, I believe part of the confusion might be our different understandings of how you and I define the statement “Second coming of Christ”. You will notice that in 1 John 2:28 it does not actually say “Second coming.” But instead says “at His coming”. I am aware of several examples in the Bible that refer to “His coming” that I would apply to different periods of times depending on the context. For example in Matt 24 I would take the preterist view of “His coming” to be in AD70 and not the “end of the world”. And in 1 John 2:28, I could possibly see “His coming” being understood in at least 3 different ways.

1. AD70
2. End of time, end of this present world as we know it
3. End of our physical lives when we die.

As I have said before, I cannot say for sure which one of the above is to be the most correct understanding regarding 1 John 2:28, but I do tend to lean to choice #3 at this time.

Regarding your point that our physical bodies here and now you believe are essential for our future resurrected body may be right. I am not sure. That understanding is clearly taken from the fact that when Jesus was raised from the dead His physical body was not left in the tomb. His body did not see decay. I agree. And to extrapolate that God must have needed Jesus physical body in order to create His immortal body might very well be true, and then again it might not.

There is no place in the Bible that says God needs or even uses the physical body we currently have now in the creation of our immortal, spiritual body. Yes, Jesus will transform these humble bodies we have now into the likeness of His glorious body at His coming. But it doesn’t say He needs our physical bodies to do it. To say He does, is an extrapolation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to our resurrection that may or may not be the same. You obviously believe it is necessary while I am not as sure as you regarding this.

I wanted to point out that you misunderstood the viewpoint I was presenting when you stated. “How do you support the view that our earthly bodies are not changed into the glorified bodies at the time of the resurrection.” I don’t think I ever said that, for I DO believe that our earthly bodies ARE changed into the glorified bodies at the time of the resurrection. Let me give you an example. If I go into my bedroom and change my clothes from work clothes to running clothes I have made a change. Right? But it doesn’t mean I used my old work clothes to change into my new running clothes. I took off the old clothes and put on the new. The old has nothing to do with the new. It is far from a perfect analogy, but I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.

I realize that Jesus resurrected body that the disciples saw had characteristics that proved it to be Him. The holes in His hands and in his side. The fact that they could feel Him and touch Him. The fact that the physical body was no longer in the tomb. All of these things I see as necessary to prove to the discples that it was really Him. Yes, Jesus indeed did rise from the dead! And I believe we all will rise from the dead at “His coming”. And “His coming” being either physical death or the end of time.

What I am most interested in getting more feedback is regarding 1 Cor 15:51 and a Greek grammatical review and whether or not a “limited negative” is a possibility in this case. It sure looks like it from my perspective, but what do I know. I wish Paidion was still lurking around and could evaluate this.

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed….

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

I see all three of the above verses as possible cases of what we might call a “limited negative”. And if so, this leads into a particular method of interpretation that is not as clear as it may appear on the surface. Anyone want to comment on this?

Mel, brother, opinions regarding methods of interpretation are always welcome when given in a humble manner. I would hope that we all realize we are searching for truth and I think that posting what you believe is helpful for everyone. As long as it is in a manner that is not telling someone else HOW they must interpret something or even HOW they must understand something. Leave it up to the individual to come to a conclusion. And also leave room for the possibility that you might be wrong regarding what you currently believe. At times you seem a little “forceful” and a bit to “teachy” Although I love to read your opinions and I learn a lot from everyone that posts here. I just get a little uncomfortable when you or anyone else comes across so strong regarding certain methods of interpretation that they believe to be the ONLY correct way to view something. I imagine you are just very passionate regarding what you believe to be the truth. And that’s great, just remember to keep a humble spirit about it and have patients for those of us that are at a different point along the journey of understanding and maturity.

God bless,
Doug

[Mellontes]

Please understand that these thoughts are a result of my own independent studies and may or may not reflect the views of all full-preterists.

I view the entire NT as the exchange and transition of the covenants – from old to new. The new inaugurated at the cross (making the old of no value) and all traces of the old covenant economy being wiped out at the destruction of Jerusalem to leave only the new covenant.

I also view the resurrection body as not having anything to do with our physical, human bodies. And of course, I view THE resurrection (as the hope of Israel) as a past event. This does not preclude that future resurrections will not occur. But once again, these are not physical resurrections.

Constant references to the dead being raised refers to two things: 1. physical resurrection as in Lazarus (John 11) and 2. spiritual resurrection as in being dead in sins raised to newness of life (from death to life).

I believe the emphasis is on the dead in sins aspect. This was the original curse. I have mentioned this before but I believe the wages of sin is not PHYSICAL death nor do I believe the sin that Adam committed in the garden led to PHYSICAL death. I think I have stated these reasons somewhere on this site (It may have been somewhere else too).

While I do believe some references to the “flesh” speak of our human body, I do not believe all references to the “flesh” speak of the human body. I also believe this to be essential in our understanding of THE resurrection. I think the meaning of flesh concerns itself with either a direct reference to the law or to the people of the old covenant economy.

Romans 8:9 – But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Many people believe this is talking about man’s sin nature but I believe this to be in error. I believe it is covenant related. These people had gone from the old covenant to the new covenant in Christ by the Spirit.

John 8:15 – Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Let’s take a look at the context. The Pharisees had just said “Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true” and Jesus tells them that they were judging after the flesh. What really important is what Jesus said almost immediately. He said, “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.” It is that “also” part that demands our attention for it alludes to the Law that the Pharisees were getting their information concerning a true witness. The Pharisees regarded Jesus as only a man, and consequently having just one witness. Jesus informs them otherwise. Here the “flesh” is connected to the Law, not a sin nature, not human reasoning, and not the human body.

Acts 2:17 – And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

While I can’t use anything in this prophecy of Joel’s to directly correlate to the law, should you also come to understand the flesh as being referent to the Law, or better, a people who held to the Law (old covenant economy), you will be able to understand how this verse is fulfilled. Remember it was to the Jew first, then to the Gentile…Peter was speaking to the house of Israel (Acts 2:36) in response to Jesus’ command in Matthew 10:6.

Romans 2:28-29 – For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Perhaps you can see how the Spirit is being contrasted to the letter of the Law and not a sin nature.

Romans 4:1-3 - What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Do you think Paul is talking about what Abraham had found as pertaining to his sin nature? Or to his own human body? The context is Jewish works, and in particular circumcision versus uncircumcision – terms of the Law. Understanding this concept of works versus faith as being Law versus Spirit gives a whole new perspective concerning the Israel that existed in the first century. It is the present day Jew and his trust in Law-keeping versus the life-giving spirit through faith in Jesus Christ.

Romans 7:5-6 – For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Surely you can see the association to the Law in these two verses. Paul speaks to the Roman church about a time when they “were in the flesh” (past tense). It is obvious that Paul is still addressing live human beings, is it not? Therefore, flesh here can not mean human bodily form. The correlation between the flesh and the Law, I believe, is undeniable.

Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Is there no more condemnation because we don’t walk after a sin nature. No, that would be works. After all, we still do sin…
Is there no more condemnation because we don’t walk after a human body. No, that is ridiculous.
It is only after the spirit where there is no more condemnation. No argument exists here I am sure.
Do you remember how the “ministry of condemnation” was associated to the Law in 2 Corinthians 3:9? Well here the same thought is compared with walking in the flesh and contrasted with being “in Christ” and “after the spirit.”

And now I should like to get a little more controversial, as in food for thought…

Romans 8:3 – For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The underlined and bolded portion makes it absolutely clear how the Law is associated with the old covenant Jew in the flesh – the ones adhering to the Law. The Law was unable to take away sin. The controversial part is whether the “likeness of sinful flesh” refers to the human body or coming in old covenant law “status.” Why is it taught as strictly being human form. And I do not at all deny the incarnation to human form in any respect. I just believe there is a lot more to it than first thought. To support this view a little further I provide:

Galatians 4:4-5 – But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

There are many more such verses about the flesh in regards to the law but I must move on…

When Jesus first appeared to the Jews in the first century the Law had become so corrupted in so many ways. Many traditions had crept into it. Hopefully I won’t need to produce all the evidences for this.

2 Corinthians 3:7-9 – But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

Notice that the “ministration of death” (verse 7) is clearly associated with the Law – “written and engraven in stones.”
Notice also that this Law was termed “glorious.”
Notice also that this glory was to be done away!!!
Now notice how the “ministration of the spirit” is more glorious (glory of the Law versus the more glorious spirit)
Now notice how the “ministration of death” is given a new term – “ministration of condemnation” (also glory).
Now notice how the ministration of the spirit is given a new term – “ministration of righteousness” (exceed in glory)

THE UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE 3 PREVIOUS VERSES IS VITALLY IMPORTANT IN SO MANY AREAS!!

You have the two “glorys.” One which is just glory or plain glorious (the Law) and the other is more glorious or exceeding in glory (the Spirit). When you read the following from 2 Corinthians 3:18 (just a few verses later), it intensifies this concept even further:

2 Corinthians 3:18 – But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

1 Peter 1:18-19 - Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Understanding what Paul said about the "seed" in Romans 9:7-8 and Galatians 3:14-29 gives us another sense about the seed and its relation to the covenants (Galatians 4:24)

Corruptible seed = tradition of the fathers
Incorruptible seed = Jesus Christ
Old covenant = corruption
New covenant = incorruption

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 - So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.


[See the present passive tense in relation to these verses near the end]

The natural body = old covenant body of BELIEVING Jews
The spiritual body = the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:53-54 – For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 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.

This is the promise to Israel! (Isaiah 25:8). The heavy burden of the Law is replaced by the light yoke of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 - Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

There are many more such inferences to these kinds of things. Please search and study them out. The “mortal” body is made immortal by the Gospel of Jesus Christ 2 Timothy 1:10)

Instead of looking at if from the physical human body perspective, why can’t it be viewed from the two-covenant perspective? Redemption isn’t physical; it is spiritual. The redemption of the body, as an original promise to ISRAEL, refers to its old covenant body being “transferred/translated” to the new covenant body, the body of Christ. This was the eager anticipation of the Messiah...although they had several misunderstandings regarding the nature of the promise, as I believe many of us have misunderstandings about the nature of the resurrection.

This view still retains the “it” theory of 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. And that being, the original “it” is what gets changed. The old covenant people of God to the new covenant people of God. The hope of Israel was this restoration. It was their resurrection from the grave (Ezekiel 37) to be in the presence of God at His parousia coming when all this would take place. The “grave” is not from the cemetery (as we often think) but is from Sheol/hades, the realm of the dead. Physical bodies don’t go to this realm. They remain rotting in the ground until they disintegrate completely (taphonomy), from dust to dust – so much for the “bones” rattling in Ezekiel’s vision…

Today, the resurrection of the dead is a continuous process. We are dead in our sins, but can be made alive in Christ. We are “raised” to newness of life. This is resurrection. When a believer dies these days, he goes directly to heaven, and not to the old covenant realm of the dead known as hades or sheol. This was all taken care of at the Parousia.

And most importantly, Israel’s resurrection/restoration had already begun back in the first century for those who were alive. 3,000 saved, 5000, saved etc.
Then there are all those verbs in the 1 Corinthian 15 passage that are very telling. These verbs are in the present passive tense and should be translated “being” this or “being” that. Here are the references:

1 Corinthians 15:2 …Ye are BEING saved…
1 Corinthians 15:12… Now if Christ is BEING preached…
1 Corinthians 15:15… we are BEING found...are not BEING raised…
1 Corinthians 15:16… are not BEING raised
1 Corinthians 15:26… the last enemy BEING destroyed!!!!!
1 Corinthians 15:32… If the dead ones are not BEING raised
1 Corinthians 15:35… how are the dead BEING raised, with what body are they coming?
1 Corinthians 15:42-44… The body is BEING sown...it is BEING raised...it is BEING sown...it is BEING raised...it is BEING sown...it is BEING raised...it is BEING sown...it is BEING raised

Please understand that this was thrown together rather hurriedly and no doubt I have some things out of place, scrambled or in total disarray. For sure this is hardly an in-depth study. I just wanted to show, in very rough introductory fashion, how these things can be related to the two covenants. It was the world of Judaism that was passing away (1 Cor 7:31, 2 Cor 3:7, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 Cor 10:11, etc.) and would eventually “vanish away” (Heb 8:13). It has nothing to do with the planet Earth!

I apologize for the length, but I don’t think I could have expressed this in a 25-word paragraph…and I have absolutely no idea what our heavenly existence will be like or how we traverse back and forth within that realm, that is, of course, if "traverse" is even remotely accurate!

Perhaps now one is better able to understand why we believe THE resurrection is past as in reference to the hope of Israel. Future resurrections via the Gospel of Jesus Christ will continue in this age without end (Eph 3:21)...literally from "age to age."

[look2jesus]

Douglas, just a few comments,

First of all, thank you for explaining where you're at...I had gotten the impression earlier that you were pretty well settled in what you currently believed, but I see that you're basically open to 'other' possibilities and are leaning towards a certain direction--I hope I have that right.

Regarding your point that our physical bodies here and now you believe are essential for our future resurrected body may be right...And to extrapolate that God must have needed Jesus physical body in order to create His immortal body might very well be true, and then again it might not.

I didn't mean to imply that God "must have needed Jesus' physical body in order to create His immortal body", I was simply pointing out that the scriptures show plainly that, in Jesus' case, that is precisely what happened. I know we don't disagree on this point. Nor did I intend to imply that "our physical bodies...are essential for our future resurrected bod[ies]", but rather, by quoting Paul in Phil. 3:21, I was trying to demonstrate that Paul indicates here that our resurrection does take place in this manner, that is, our mortal body, the one we currently reside in (Grk - "the body of our humility"), is the same body that will be transformed into the likeness of his glorious body. Perhaps you could explain to me what else Paul might mean there...I think the way I explained it would be the most natural way to understand his words.

There is no place in the Bible that says God needs or even uses the physical body we currently have now in the creation of our immortal, spiritual body.

Phil. 3:21 ...who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.(NET)
Rom. 8:11 Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit who lives in you.(NET)

I wanted to point out that you misunderstood the viewpoint I was presenting when you stated. “How do you support the view that our earthly bodies are not changed into the glorified bodies at the time of the resurrection.”

This was my reasoning:

I think physical death is going to be a "resurection" of some sort. A change, in a twinkling of an eye, when we put off the mortal body. And my current believe is that our immortal, spiritual body will be given to us at that time as well, just like Christs body.

While people who have died recently most likely still have physical bodies laying in graves, I would venture to guess that the majority, if not all, of the graves of people who died 2000 years ago are indeed empty, as the natural decomposition process has probably finished its job. Right? So I guess I could answer your question above with at least some of the graves from the dead are now empty.

You said that you thought physical death is going to be some sort of resurrection. You said this would occur "when we put off the mortal body" and you said that at this same time, we would be given "our immortal, spiritual body". Then you said that only some of the graves of the dead are empty, and only because of natural decomposition, implying that those graves with bodies in them that have not yet decomposed are still there. (Now I have assumed that we were talking about saved individuals, you know, absent from the body, present with the Lord.) Therefore, since the dead bodies are still in the grave, they have not been changed into glorified bodies which , you said, happened upon death.

Now concerning the limited negative, I need to have you explain what the sentence from 1 Cor. would look like translated the way you see it. Also, the statement from "The Lord's Prayer" if you wouldn't mind. As I understand it in the remaining example you cited, Jesus could be understood as having said, "I did not [only] come to bring peace, but [also] a sword." But it's not clear to me how you think the limited negative should be applied in the other two cases. Thanks, Douglas.

Mellontes, I'm still thinking through some of your latest post and should be able to respond shortly. The time is near! Thanks for your patience, brother.

l2j

[Douglas]

Phil. 3:21 ...who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.(NET)

Considering Phil 3:21 might we not possibly understand this to mean something like changing ones clothes? We put off the mortal and put on the immortal.

Rom. 8:11 Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit who lives in you.(NET)

And reflecting on Rom 8:11. Consider how one makes a mortal body "alive"? Might we not possibly understand the part "will also make your mortal bodies alive" to mean that those who are alive physically will be doing the things that God would have us do in this mortal body, instead of being a slave to sin and doing the things that lead to death, if the Spirit of Jesus is in us. Which seems in context of Rom 8 in general, I think.

I imagine you are trying to understand the part "will also make your mortal bodies alive" to really mean "transform your mortal bodies into immortal bodies", and although I believe that we will shed these mortal bodies and be given immortal bodies upon death (or the end of time), I do not think Rom 8:11 is talking about that in this verse. Then again I could be wrong and you could be right.

Considering Mel's emphasis on the Covenants (old covenant vs. new covenant), I wonder how he would understand these two verses?

Doug

[look2jesus]

Douglas,

I guess I was focusing on the word "transform". To me, that seems to mimic what happened to Jesus' body. His mortal body was transformed into a glorious body. Do you think that Jesus' resurrection, in terms of what happened to His body, is analogous to changing ones clothes? (I don't want you to think that I'm dogmatic about these things, Douglas, and I'm quite amenable to seeing many things in the scriptures as being figuratively described. I just don't see the obvious need to see Phil. 3:21 in that way...therefore, the metamorphosis of our present bodies seems to me to be the most natural reading of the text and I think that is what Paul is saying here, that's all.)

[Mellontes]

Phil. 3:21 ...who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.(NET)

Considering Phil 3:21 might we not possibly understand this to mean something like changing ones clothes? We put off the mortal and put on the immortal.

Rom. 8:11 Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit who lives in you.(NET)

And reflecting on Rom 8:11. Consider how one makes a mortal body "alive"? Might we not possibly understand the part "will also make your mortal bodies alive" to mean that those who are alive physically will be doing the things that God would have us do in this mortal body, instead of being a slave to sin and doing the things that lead to death, if the Spirit of Jesus is in us. Which seems in context of Rom 8 in general, I think.

I imagine you are trying to understand the part "will also make your mortal bodies alive" to really mean "transform your mortal bodies into immortal bodies", and although I believe that we will shed these mortal bodies and be given immortal bodies upon death (or the end of time), I do not think Rom 8:11 is talking about that in this verse. Then again I could be wrong and you could be right.

Considering Mel's emphasis on the Covenants (old covenant vs. new covenant), I wonder how he would understand these two verses?

Doug

Doug, et al,

I believe the translation you are using for Philippians 3:21 might be in error... "these humble bodies of ours" is σωμα της ταπεινωσεως...

σωμα - singular "body"
της - plural "our"
ταπεινωσεως - singular modifier "humble, vile"

Therefore it should be "our humble body." Again we have the plural possessive, and the singular object as in 2 Corinthians 4:10 and Romans 8:23.

2 Corinthians 4:10 - Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

Romans 8:23 - And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

It is this plural possessive of the singular object that messes with an individual body aspect...that is why I think more covenantal. As for Jesus having a "glorified" physical form (glorified body), I can only state two things: it was Jesus who was glorified and he has a glorified body - the church, the new covenant body. I think it is a mistake to be thinking so much along the lines of physical transformation no matter how it may be designed... We often forget that Jesus could do many miraculous things like walking on water, to me, no different that being able to go through walls in his "apparently" glorified physical body...

Romans 8:29-30 - For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

To me, the mortal body is made immortal, not by some kind of physical glorification process, but by the Gospel. Each individual becomes part of the body of Christ through the Gospel...

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

I am still trying to work through the following verses to see what relation these "bodies" (definite plurals) has to do with things:

Romans 8:11 - 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.

I think the above verse may be more closely related to receiving the Gospel and, as a result, be placed into the new glorified covenant body, Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:40 - There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

The verse above, however, seems to be a little more trickier than I might imagine...I am looking at heavenly bodies versus earthly bodies which fits well with Paul's use of the two covenants in Galatians 4 (earthly Jerusalem, Jerusalem which is above), but why the word (bodies) is in the plural form has me stumped - at least right now, perhaps next by week...

[George]

Mellontes,
You wrote; "To me, the mortal body is made immortal, not by some kind of physical glorification process, but by the Gospel. Each individual becomes part of the body of Christ through the Gospel...

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

When you say "through the Gospel" are you speaking of the "new creation" that all believers become when the Spirit resides in them?

Also, as a Full Preterist, how would one explain Christ ascending in Acts 1:10-11 and the disciples being told He would return in like fashion (visible)?

I consider myself to be a Partial Preterist and do believe that Jesus did return in judgment upon Israel in 70 A.D., yet I sill have not been convinced that Jesus will not physically return in a Second Advent.
Grace, George

[Mellontes]

Mellontes,
You wrote; "To me, the mortal body is made immortal, not by some kind of physical glorification process, but by the Gospel. Each individual becomes part of the body of Christ through the Gospel...

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

When you say "through the Gospel" are you speaking of the "new creation" that all believers become when the Spirit resides in them?

Also, as a Full Preterist, how would one explain Christ ascending in Acts 1:10-11 and the disciples being told He would return in like fashion (visible)?

I consider myself to be a Partial Preterist and do believe that Jesus did return in judgment upon Israel in 70 A.D., yet I sill have not been convinced that Jesus will not physically return in a Second Advent.
Grace, George

Hi George. Thanks for the questions...hmmm...am I speaking of the new creation that all believers become when the Spirit resides in them? This is a tough one. I have been thinking on this rather recently and I would say that the new creation (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15) makes us immortal from a post-parousia point of view. But please do not define immortality by our present-day western culture dictionaries...But there are some caveats to this and I am certainly no expert on these caveats. Before the parousia, the Holy Spirit was given as an earnest, a guarantee for the salvation/redemption that was spoken of in the future (future to them, but not to us). They had the promise by faith. It was a guaranteed hope. So they were "being" raised (present passive verbs) in 1 Cor 15 and yet would have to wait for their redemption (Luke 21:28, Romans 8:23, Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30, 1 Thess 5:8, Heb 9:28, 1 Peter 1:5-9). Now, let me say this, as a full-preterist who believes in the past parousia, I no longer hope for redemption - I am completely redeemed. I have been made immortal because Jesus has already come to give substance to the hope a long time ago. Now here is something you may not have heard, and I do not know if all full-prets hold to this view. But if the parousia has come and gone (no pun intended), then I, as a post-parousia believer never required the earnest. I would immediately be indwelt by God upon belief. I am no longer separated from God. I don't have to wait for the parousia. Clear as mud, right? It's late and I should have gone to bed a long time ago. If it doesn't make any sense, that is one good reason why...

Now, regarding Acts 1:10-11, one of my favorite passages to prove that the physical body is not the emphasis...I had just written an email (tonite) to a dispensational friend of mine on those two verses. I will copy and paste it:

Let's say I visited you on a hot summer day and when I left I revved my car engine and squealed my tires leaving tire marks down your driveway and on to the street. Later, if you were asked in what manner I left, would you say that I left in my physical body or would you say I bolted out of there like a house on fire? The angel compared the manner as pertaining to two verbs, “go” and “come.” The angel was not comparing a physical form (NOUN). It is the going and coming that is the manner and not Jesus’ body that is being compared. How did He go into heaven? In a cloud…The disciples were looking steadfastly toward heaven after the “cloud” received Him out of their sight. So, if anything, He was NOT VISIBLE when He entered heaven. How did He go into heaven? He went into heaven unseen. What did the angels say? They said, “this same Jesus…shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. ”. In all the other day of the Lords from the OT, there is no precedent that deity must appear in physical form. And since Jesus was to come "in the glory of His Father" (Matthew 16:27, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26), I see no reason why he must come physically either...

George, may I ask you a question now? If you believe the Lord did return in judgment upon Israel in 70 AD, and knowing that the parousia is mentioned in Matthew 24:3, where in Scripture is the other parousia mentioned that does not refer to the one in 70 AD? Where is the one that is said to be way far off in their future as opposed to the one that was "at hand," "nigh," "near," "shortly come to pass," "in a very, very little while," "coming quickly," "at the door," "last hour," etc.?

Blessings!

[George]

Mellontes,
Do you believe that when a person says yes to Jesus and now has belief, that this conversion and subsequently new mindset (world view) is due solely to the Spirit working in you (Ezekiel 36:22-28)?

Acts 1:10-11 (Young's Literal Translation)
"10and as they were looking steadfastly to the heaven in his going on, then, lo, two men stood by them in white apparel,
11who also said, `Men, Galileans, why do ye stand gazing into the heaven? this Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven."
After reading the literal Greek of these verses, I can readily see your rational and it does make sense.

In regards to the Fall of Jerusalem, I do believe that the Gospels and many of the Epistles are speaking in urgency of this coming demise, as well as probably all of the Gehenna passages spoken by Christ. In Matthew 24 and 25 (also parallel passages) I see this happening in the immediate future; a coming of Christ in judgment at the hands of the Romans, which is "a day of the Lord" and the end of a whole religious system (end of the Jewish age). Still future; I see the physical return of Christ, "The Day of the Lord", the resurrection of the dead, the Rapture of those who believe at the final parousia, final judgment, the end of this present history, the reconciliation of all people, then Christ gives over the Kingdom to the Father and we reign together in eternity. Now admitting this I realize that a Full Preterist would cry foul, because of using some of the very same proof texts to support their view in passages like Mathew 24 and 25 which to stay consistent seem in context to be describing a 70A.D. occurrence. Yet, I believe God as come throughout Scripture in judgment and etc, which the Full Preterist even uses as some of their (O.T. passages) support for their interpretation of Matthew 24 and 25. So, I guess I am saying that parousia's have come and will come until that final "Day of the Lord". 1Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelations 19-22, would be Scripture I would find support of my view. With all this said, I COULD BE WRONG.
Peace, George

[Mellontes]

Mellontes,
Do you believe that when a person says yes to Jesus and now has belief, that this conversion and subsequently new mindset (world view) is due solely to the Spirit working in you (Ezekiel 36:22-28)?

Acts 1:10-11 (Young's Literal Translation)
"10and as they were looking steadfastly to the heaven in his going on, then, lo, two men stood by them in white apparel,
11who also said, `Men, Galileans, why do ye stand gazing into the heaven? this Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven."
After reading the literal Greek of these verses, I can readily see your rational and it does make sense.

In regards to the Fall of Jerusalem, I do believe that the Gospels and many of the Epistles are speaking in urgency of this coming demise, as well as probably all of the Gehenna passages spoken by Christ. In Matthew 24 and 25 (also parallel passages) I see this happening in the immediate future; a coming of Christ in judgment at the hands of the Romans, which is "a day of the Lord" and the end of a whole religious system (end of the Jewish age). Still future; I see the physical return of Christ, "The Day of the Lord", the resurrection of the dead, the Rapture of those who believe at the final parousia, final judgment, the end of this present history, the reconciliation of all people, then Christ gives over the Kingdom to the Father and we reign together in eternity. Now admitting this I realize that a Full Preterist would cry foul, because of using some of the very same proof texts to support their view in passages like Mathew 24 and 25 which to stay consistent seem in context to be describing a 70A.D. occurrence. Yet, I believe God as come throughout Scripture in judgment and etc, which the Full Preterist even uses as some of their (O.T. passages) support for their interpretation of Matthew 24 and 25. So, I guess I am saying that parousia's have come and will come until that final "Day of the Lord". 1Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelations 19-22, would be Scripture I would find support of my view. With all this said, I COULD BE WRONG.
Peace, George

Mellontes,
Do you believe that when a person says yes to Jesus and now has belief, that this conversion and subsequently new mindset (world view) is due solely to the Spirit working in you (Ezekiel 36:22-28)?

Yes and no and not sure...how's that for being definite? I believe it was Paul in Romans 2:24 that identifies with Ezekiel in that regard. But I think he is speaking to the Jews in particular. Now I know that I become heir of the Jewish promises when I believe unto Life, but was Paul applying that Ezekiel passage DIRECTLY to Gentile believers as well...I am not sure. As far as the Holy Spirit working in me, I don't know. As a full-pret, and knowing that I might be the only one who holds to this view, I don't necessarily believe I got the Holy Spirit when I first believed - at least NOT as an earnest. Jesus has already come. I get indwelled and experience the presence of God immediately upon salvation. I don't have to wait for my redemption like the first century saints did (Luke 21:28, Romans 8:23, Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30, 1 Thess 5:8, Heb 9:28, 1 Peter 1:5-9) THIS WAS ONE PURPOSE OF THE PAROUSIA.

I need to now ask you where exactly your FINAL day of the Lord is first mentioned in the entire Bible. I will also need to know its purpose. Was it to end all time and history? I will need the Scriptures that mention its purpose. I don't know if you have read other recent posts by me of late, but I did mention 1 Corinthians 15 in some detail within the last few weeks...

As I told one fellow, The NT always speaks of THE parousia, not A parousia

It looks as if our banter back and forth could be quite long. If you would rather do it by PM, that is fine by me. You could always post the results at some later time as one complete block...or make it available to others on a request basis, if anyone is interested in our banter. May I suggest that each person honestly and accurately answer the individual's question and then follow up with one of his own. That way we both interact by answering and asking one question each. As soon as one question is not answered the other may be free to stop the banter...not that I am getting a hint of that behavior from you.