Was Jesus raised "in the Flesh"?

[steve7150]

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







My comment is unwarranted you say, we will have to agree to disagree about that. Jesus audience goes beyond his immediate listeners as he knew and God intended his words to never pass way.
When Jesus says "all" will come out of their graves he speaks to every person on God's green earth.

[Mellontes]

When Jesus says "all" will come out of their graves he speaks to every person on God's green earth.

Even those who were vaporized in the Challenger spaceflight on January 28, 1986??? LOL.

Jesus audience goes beyond his immediate listeners...

Then according to that statement, there is no such thing as the original interpretation, none whatsoever. That is futurism eschatology in a nut shell. Well said, Steve!

[RickC]

When Jesus says "all" will come out of their graves he speaks to every person on God's green earth.

Even those who were vaporized in the Challenger spaceflight on January 28, 1986??? LOL.

Jesus audience goes beyond his immediate listeners...

Then according to that statement, there is no such thing as the original interpretation, none whatsoever. That is futurism eschatology in a nut shell. Well said, Steve!

First of all, I haven't been involved in the recent discussions re: full-preterism. I'm not interested in getting into a debate or debates.

Also, I realize that the above was/is between Mellontes and Steve7150. But I do have comments to both of Mellontes' replies to Steve7150 -

Even those who were vaporized in the Challenger spaceflight on January 28, 1986??? LOL

1) A friend of mine is terminally ill and asked if I would be a paw-bearer, to which I gladly agreed (though I will hate to see him go). However, he doesn't have life insurance and thus, will be cremated by our county government. Thus, his body won't be in a casket and will be "in the atmosphere" as it was with the astronauts. He asked if I thought cremation was biblical or okay for a Christian to do. My reply was that, as far as I know, the Bible is silent on it. But then again, I added to him, there have been many saints who were burned at the stake, including Polycarp, an Early Church Father. Polycarp believed in [bodily] resurrection, that God would raise him bodily. In the same sense of Polycarp's meaning and belief, and in my opinion, God can and will raise my friend and the astronauts - (bodily) - who died in the Challenger tragedy - and my friend agrees.

Then according to that statement, there is no such thing as the original interpretation, none whatsoever. That is futurism eschatology in a nut shell. Well said, Steve!

2) The "original interpretation" of any given text must be in accordance with what the author(s) meant and intended. How the texts or books would have been originally understood. That being said, I disagree with full-preterist hermeneutics and think it does not take into account the "original interpretation" adequately. The reason I say this is, I've been following the discussion(s) on the forum and haven't seen the actual authorial intention and meaning being taken into account. I understand that full-preterists are committed to a literal interpretation (which I am not). There is only one "original interpretation" - that which was meant when it was written. "An interpretation" may claim it is the "original interpretation." But it has to be demonstrated that this was what was meant at the time any book or text was written - and this must include how it was understood.

Otherwise

As a student of biblical prophecy, I've "been looking" at the same verses that have been cited on recent full-preterist threads here. (I've been studying them for some time now). It would be next to impossible for me to reply in discussions here as I have such a different hermeneutic. I've refrained because I know the differences are so strong that discussion would probably be meaningless (as in, talking past one another). I will say that I can't recall any full-preterist interpretations that I've agreed with (on a single text). Thus, I don't want to debate and doubt discussion would be of any real value. Another way to say this might be that, since I'm familiar with full-preterist hermeneutics or interpretations, I know in advance that it would take virtually FOREVER to reply...(for one thing, like on just one verse or Greek word!)...and I doubt it would do any good.

I've thought about starting a thread on (something like) "Jewish Expectations in the First Century" (which would take into account "original interpretation") and/or "Already/Not Yet Eschatology" (the latter of which I know full-preterists do not believe in) but....I simply don't want to debate full-preterism! But at any rate....

I don't have it all figured out and wish forum posters (and readers) the best in their studies!
Thanks!

[TK]

Mellontes wrote:

Even those who were vaporized in the Challenger spaceflight on January 28, 1986??? LOL.

Why do you keep bringing this up? I guess I don't understand it-- why would God not be able to re-assemble atoms, etc? Even people in graves, if they have been there long enough, are only bones. Can't God put back their flesh back on their bones?

I know you dont agree with a resurrenction of a physical body, but for heaven's sake you have to admit that if God wanted to, it wouldn't be a problem for Him. If you think it would be impossible for God to do so, then that is a different matter.

TK

[Mellontes]

Mellontes wrote:

Even those who were vaporized in the Challenger spaceflight on January 28, 1986??? LOL.

Why do you keep bringing this up? I guess I don't understand it-- why would God not be able to re-assemble atoms, etc? Even people in graves, if they have been there long enough, are only bones. Can't God put back their flesh back on their bones?

I know you dont agree with a resurrenction of a physical body, but for heaven's sake you have to admit that if God wanted to, it wouldn't be a problem for Him. If you think it would be impossible for God to do so, then that is a different matter.

TK

Tk,

The argument is moot. God could turn me into a pretzel if He wished. The point is what do the Scriptures teach? It is not about a physical resurrection body. But there is no way in the world you folks will ever set aside your present "physical" paradigm to try to understand these things. The death that is swallowed up in victory has nothing to do with physical death. It was a promise to faithful Israel. When we die we don't go to that hadean realm as in the old covenant economy days. The ministration of sin and death is over and done with...the "end" has nothing to do with time or history. It is the end of the old covenant economy. Seen any biblical sacrifices lately? What do you think Paul meant by: (Please answer)

2 Corinthians 3:7 - 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:

and...

1 Corinthians 10:11 - Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [ages] are come.

Do you really believe that the "our" in "our admonition" is speaking of today's Christianity? Or do you recognize who Paul is writing to and the first century significance of this?

Why do you folks constantly ignore the first century context? Eschatology is the only biblical "ology" that ignores this. Why is that? (another question for you)

And since Steve7150 ignored my question, perhaps you could explain to me how YOU would flee Judea at your supposed future coming. Oh, yeah. You likely "chop" Matthew 24 and 25 into two portions - one for 70 AD and one for the end of time and history.

If you believe that the New Testament is basically a fulfillment of the Old Testament, then please tell me where in the Old Testament do you find anything about an end of time and history? That is my question to you...

[TK]

mellontes wrote:

If you believe that the New Testament is basically a fulfillment of the Old Testament,

I dont think I can accept this as a blamket statement, although it is certainly true to some degree.

TK

[Mellontes]

mellontes wrote:

If you believe that the New Testament is basically a fulfillment of the Old Testament,

I dont think I can accept this as a blamket statement, although it is certainly true to some degree.

TK

Perhaps I should have said all things, in particular, eschatology of the OT. The old covenant types and shadows (Israel after the flesh) are fulfilled completely in the anti-type Jesus Christ and His church, the new covenant (Israel via the Spirit). It is not fulfilled in a new restored planet (as many believe).
Please answer this other question I asked. I repeat it below:

What do you think Paul meant by: (Please answer)

2 Corinthians 3:7 - 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:

and...

1 Corinthians 10:11 - Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [ages] are come.

Do you really believe that the "our" in "our admonition" is speaking of today's Christianity? Or do you recognize who Paul is writing to and the first century significance of this?

[Allyn]

Hey Rick,
How ya doing? I see you have a new pic - you look like you are deep in thought or a little stressed out. Maybe both

Your reasoning in the post you contributed here is exactly why I try not to say too much concerning what is definite opinion but would instead rather stick to the teachings from the inspired writers and how they linked and locked in with beautiful harmony what the prophets and other inspired writers had said.
I hope to continue with what I would rather stick to and let the reader decide if what I say is accurate or not.

[RickC]

Hello Allyn

As I said earlier, the verses that you have been looking at - I have been too (for years & years). I'm finding different "angles" of looking at them, so to speak, and am continually learning. Most especially how to fit problem passages into my overall view of the Bible (what the Bible says, as a whole).

Some time recently Steve G said he has a lot to learn and is undecided about certain verses or sections. I'm the same. And while I've seen most of the posts re: full-preterist POVs, I'm not "leaning" in that direction. However! I'm probably about as partial-preterist as one can get! (As an example, I think certain verses in Rev 22 are talking about the present! - but I haven't had time to work it all out).

My pic is a year old, taken with the sun in my eyes on a really sunshiney day. I didn't have any more film, and the guy snapped it (taken with a regular camera) before I could ask him to reposition.

Winding Down Here
Like many if not most people who post here, I want to hear opposing viewpoints. And on some topics I've found areas of agreement with those I disagree with otherwise - (a Oneness Pentecostal comes to mind, Mike Blume, with whom I seem to agree on Eschatology in general).

You asked how I'm doing.
Briefly, I'm laid off, but trust God will provide!
God has been very good to me, though the job situation in Ohio hasn't been all-that-great (since I moved back to my home state in 2001).
God is Good: All the Time: God is Good.

God bless you, Allyn!
It's good to talk with you again!
(I may be reading, but doubt I will post much, if at all)....
At any rate, take care!

[Allyn]

Hey Rick,
I will be driving through Ohio the last week of July. I will be flying out to NH on the 26th and then driving a Budget rental truck back with my Daughter and her furniture and pet managere.