Was Jesus raised "in the Flesh"?

[Homer]

Allyn wrote:

The Scriptures say that the resurrection of the dead (that resurrection out of the dust of the grave) was for Daniel's people.........There are two separate parts to this topic of Christ's resurrection. One is the resurrection of the dead (not of us as you said) Those are srictly the children of Israel of the Old Covenant economy...........The second is concerning those who have fallen asleep in Christ.

Hmmm, keeps getting stranger and stranger. So the (physical?) resurrection was for Daniel's people and those in Christ have a similar resurrection or a different one? And who are "Daniel's people? Jews? Is Job left out? He anticipated a resurrection, it seems, and was neither a Jew nor a descendent of Abraham. And would proselytes be included? The people before the flood? They were no part of the covenant at Sinai.

We have been informed of the importance of audience relevance. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, many or most of whom were certainly Gentiles and not "Daniel's people", do you think, reading what Paul wrote to them, that they understood your scenario or would they be more likely to understand his words as more like the traditional view that was held by the earliest Christians, and is still held to this day?

[Allyn]

Allyn wrote:

The Scriptures say that the resurrection of the dead (that resurrection out of the dust of the grave) was for Daniel's people.........There are two separate parts to this topic of Christ's resurrection. One is the resurrection of the dead (not of us as you said) Those are srictly the children of Israel of the Old Covenant economy...........The second is concerning those who have fallen asleep in Christ.

Hmmm, keeps getting stranger and stranger. So the (physical?) resurrection was for Daniel's people and those in Christ have a similar resurrection or a different one? And who are "Daniel's people? Jews? Is Job left out? He anticipated a resurrection, it seems, and was neither a Jew nor a descendent of Abraham. And would proselytes be included? The people before the flood? They were no part of the covenant at Sinai.



We have been informed of the importance of audience relevance. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, many or most of whom were certainly Gentiles and not "Daniel's people", do you think, reading what Paul wrote to them, that they understood your scenario or would they be more likely to understand his words as more like the traditional view that was held by the earliest Christians, and is still held to this day?

Stranger? No it should become clearer since you misquoted the text and I have pointed that out to you, Homer.
Yes it is Daniels people who get raised.
(Daniel 12) 1 “At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.

How God determines who they all are is not privy to me except they are counted as Daniels people. Notice not all who are in the dust are raised but only many and notice it says Daniels people.

There is no resurrection for us in Christ because there is no death. We are with Christ at our own death for it is appointed once for man to die and then the judgment - no waiting . And as I have pointed out before, blessed are we who die from now on Re.14 - why would we be so blessed if our death amounted to the same as Daniels where we must sleep in the dust? Nonetheless, we must go by Scripture and stop the speculation based on what may have been falsely taught to us.

They understood in part, at least, because even in 1 Cor 15 Paul had to reteach it to them what they had already once believed. Your dispute is not really with me but rather with your presupposition. I have pointed out the error of at least 2 of those presups.

[Homer]

Hi Allyn,

You wrote:

There is no resurrection for us in Christ because there is no death. We are with Christ at our own death for it is appointed once for man to die and then the judgment - no waiting . And as I have pointed out before, blessed are we who die from now on Re.14 - why would we be so blessed if our death amounted to the same as Daniels where we must sleep in the dust? Nonetheless, we must go by Scripture and stop the speculation based on what may have been falsely taught to us.

Can you see the contradiction in what you wrote? AS the saying goes, "it is not what is said that is important, but what it means".

2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

There are many problems with your understanding of the text of Daniel. There is nothing in the text that limits "those who sleep in the dust" to deceased Israelites. In John 5 Jesus says "all who are in the tombs". As Lange's commentary points out, "the expression is far to general in its character to admit of its being limited to deceased Israelites". And do you contend that only wicked Israelites meet with everlasting punishment? You must if you are consistent in your exposition of the text. Also Lange points out the Hebrew word translated "many" could also have been translated "in multitudes" and may designate the entire world of the dead. Lange's further references the "abundantly evidenced" expectation of a general resurrection of the dead that is found in Jewish apocalyptic literature (Maccabees, for example) and in the New Testament, John 5:28 and Acts 24:15, etc. These you artificially shoe-horn into your system by limiting them to the Jews, which you must do to make your system work.

I notice you ignored my question about Job and the people before the flood.

God bless, Homer

[Mellontes]

Hi Allyn,

You wrote:

There is no resurrection for us in Christ because there is no death. We are with Christ at our own death for it is appointed once for man to die and then the judgment - no waiting . And as I have pointed out before, blessed are we who die from now on Re.14 - why would we be so blessed if our death amounted to the same as Daniels where we must sleep in the dust? Nonetheless, we must go by Scripture and stop the speculation based on what may have been falsely taught to us.

Can you see the contradiction in what you wrote? AS the saying goes, "it is not what is said that is important, but what it means".

2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

There are many problems with your understanding of the text of Daniel. There is nothing in the text that limits "those who sleep in the dust" to deceased Israelites. In John 5 Jesus says "all who are in the tombs". As Lange's commentary points out, "the expression is far to general in its character to admit of its being limited to deceased Israelites". And do you contend that only wicked Israelites meet with everlasting punishment? You must if you are consistent in your exposition of the text. Also Lange points out the Hebrew word translated "many" could also have been translated "in multitudes" and may designate the entire world of the dead. Lange's further references the "abundantly evidenced" expectation of a general resurrection of the dead that is found in Jewish apocalyptic literature (Maccabees, for example) and in the New Testament, John 5:28 and Acts 24:15, etc. These you artificially shoe-horn into your system by limiting them to the Jews, which you must do to make your system work.

I notice you ignored my question about Job and the people before the flood.

God bless, Homer

Hi Homer,

I am glad you agree that the audience must be taken into consideration as referenced by your response to me of “You justifiably place much value on what certain things would have meant to the people of Jesus' day who heard Him speak.” (Source: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 197#p43197

We all understand that Jesus' ministry was to the Jews:

Matthew 15:24 - But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel

Now, let's look at the context of John 5:28 and see what immediately precedes Christ's dialogue:

John 5:15 - The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
John 5:16 - And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
John 5:17 - But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:19 - Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you…

The context is clearly the Jews…it is commonly associated that “all” represents human kind, but doesn’t that fly in the face of whom Jesus was addressing here, especially when Matthew 15:24 represents the larger picture?

And yes, the Gentiles eventually do become part of the big picture too, but not in this passage.

[Allyn]

Homer,
For now as I have only a moment, I am going to respond to the following:

I notice you ignored my question about Job and the people before the flood.

God bless, Homer

I certainly did answer the question. I said
How God determines who they all are is not privy to me except they are counted as Daniels people. Notice not all who are in the dust are raised but only many and notice it says Daniels people.

Why is that not a good answer let alone an answer? How would you scripturally answer your own question?

[Homer]

Hi Allyn,

By what criteria are you determining who "Daniel's people" are? Job was not a Jew, or part of the covenant, as I pointed out earlier.

[Allyn]

Hi Allyn,

By what criteria are you determining who "Daniel's people" are? Job was not a Jew, or part of the covenant, as I pointed out earlier.

I am not determining anything about Job or anyone except this; the OT says that Daniel's people will be raised. If Job became one of Daniels people by virtue of whatever God wants then I am good with that, but the fact remains that only Daniel's people were raised at the second coming of Christ. There is only one general resurrection of the dead and they all are made up of Daniel's people only. There is no way around this. There have been untold numbers of people who have died throughout all OT time but only many will be raised to either destruction or life, Daniel says those are strictly his people. Many raised (his people) the rest are not raised ( the left over after the many).

I have yet to have an answer from you to this:
How would you scripturally answer your own question?

[Allyn]

Can you see the contradiction in what you wrote? AS the saying goes, "it is not what is said that is important, but what it means".

There is no contradiction in what I wrote. Jesus first said it and there was no contradiction then. Or is that too a contradiction for you?
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

If you disagree with my interpretation then please share yours and show me how you have arrived at it.

There are many problems with your understanding of the text of Daniel. There is nothing in the text that limits "those who sleep in the dust" to deceased Israelites. In John 5 Jesus says "all who are in the tombs". As Lange's commentary points out, "the expression is far to general in its character to admit of its being limited to deceased Israelites". And do you contend that only wicked Israelites meet with everlasting punishment? You must if you are consistent in your exposition of the text. Also Lange points out the Hebrew word translated "many" could also have been translated "in multitudes" and may designate the entire world of the dead. Lange's further references the "abundantly evidenced" expectation of a general resurrection of the dead that is found in Jewish apocalyptic literature (Maccabees, for example) and in the New Testament, John 5:28 and Acts 24:15, etc. These you artificially shoe-horn into your system by limiting them to the Jews, which you must do to make your system work.


God bless, Homer

Even in what you have stated above, Homer, does not nullify what I have been saying. As a preterist I am determined to let Scripture speak on these things. I have yet to see this from you, Homer. What I mean is when will you take me to the verse or verses that says anything other than that the general resurrection is for Israel only. This is very important and a good exercise.
My contention from Scripture is that the Bible is a covenantal expose' concerning God's people through a promise and for the bringing of Christ first to the Jew and then the world. God, true to His word, resurrected His people at the end of those days. Those days, as described to Daniel by the angel, were the days immediately following the Abomination which causes desolation. Jesus said those days, according to Daniel, were the generation that saw all those things leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Hebrews is clear that the new covenant follows the resurrection in that the Hebrew writer quoted Jer. 31 - the new covenant chapter - when speaking of the resurrection. These things all tie together for a 1st century fulfillment.

God Bless you also, Homer

[steve7150]

Now, let's look at the context of John 5:28 and see what immediately precedes Christ's dialogue:

John 5:15 - The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
John 5:16 - And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
John 5:17 - But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:19 - Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you…

The context is clearly the Jews…it is commonly associated that “all” represents human kind, but doesn’t that fly in the face of whom Jesus was addressing here, especially when Matthew 15:24 represents the larger picture?

And yes, the Gentiles eventually do become part of the big picture too, but not in this passage.







Ironically preterism is in a certain way sounding like hyper-dispensationalism , in that it's parsing Jesus words as applicable to only certain groups depending , not on his words but more on who he is speaking to.
He always is speaking to someone, the someone is not the context , his words are the context. As Paul said there is no jew or gentile in Christ.

[Mellontes]

Now, let's look at the context of John 5:28 and see what immediately precedes Christ's dialogue:

John 5:15 - The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
John 5:16 - And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
John 5:17 - But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:19 - Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you…

The context is clearly the Jews…it is commonly associated that “all” represents human kind, but doesn’t that fly in the face of whom Jesus was addressing here, especially when Matthew 15:24 represents the larger picture?

And yes, the Gentiles eventually do become part of the big picture too, but not in this passage.


Ironically preterism is in a certain way sounding like hyper-dispensationalism , in that it's parsing Jesus words as applicable to only certain groups depending , not on his words but more on who he is speaking to.
He always is speaking to someone, the someone is not the context , his words are the context. As Paul said there is no jew or gentile in Christ.

A couple of things here...

Do you think the Jews that Jesus was speaking to were privy to Paul's letters? It is rhetoric; do not attempt to answer.

Do you believe that when you come across the following passage "The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments" that you should jump on a plane and head off to the Middle East in search of Paul's coat and books? No, of course not. AUDIENCE DOES MATTER!

Do you think that after reading Luke 10:30-36 that you should carry out Christ's command to "Go and do likewise"? Of course not. AUDIENCE MATTERS!

It is not sound hermeneutics to ignore the relevancy of the audience or the time frame it is posited in.

Please explain to me how YOU are going to flee Judea one day. AUDIENCE MATTERS! TIME FRAME MATTERS!

Listen to the words of a FUTURIST scholar:

“First, it may be laid down that Scripture has one meaning, - the meaning which it had to the mind of the prophet or evangelist who first uttered or wrote to the hearers or readers who first received it. Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which is to be gathered from itself, without reference to the adaptations of fathers or divines, and without regard to a priori notions about its nature and origin. The office of the interpreter is not to add another [interpretation], but to recover the original one: the meaning, that is, of the words as they struck on the ears or flashed before the eyes of those who first heard and read them.” Professor Jowett, Essay on the Interpretation of Scripture, § i. 3, 4.

Your comment is not only unwarranted but in great contrast to the standard rules of hermeneutics...