Fully predestinated, called, and justified???

[Mellontes]

Our resurrection is passing from death unto life as John 5:24 so clearly states. It happens while we are yet alive.

My guess is that you would agree with the second century gnostics who wrote: "The soulish people (sometimes translated "The animal people", that is, the people of the universal Christian church who emphasized the physical rather than the "spiritual") say, 'First comes death, and then the resurrection.' They have it backwards! We say,'First comes the resurrection, and then death'."

You're right! It would only be a guess...
You're right again...the gnostics did emphasize the physical. Hence the gnostic teaching of futurism which demands a physical return and a physical resurrection of believers.

So, you believe resurrection occurs before physical death, if "physical" death is what you meant?

Actually, here is the proper order. (I will have to incorporate both your view and the gnostics). Perhaps we can call it Paidgnostics:

The death (separation from God) - resurrection from that death by the spirit - physical death for all believers...

John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Anyone who is IN CHRIST has already been made alive eternally.

[Mellontes]

Mellontes wrote

And the reason Jesus was put bak into His human form AFTER the resurrection from Hades was to prove to the disciples (and many others later on) that He had truly risen from the realm of the dead. If Christ was not put back into the human shell (which remained uncorruptible), there is no way the disciples could have known that Christ had victory over THE DEATH

Those are assumptions that fit your perception, I suppose, but off-hand I can't remember any Scripture that requires me to accept them. Are you sure that was "the reason Jesus was put back" into His human form/shell? (Excuse me, but this sounds like a vaudeville show between acts) Are you sure there is no other way the disciples could have known He had been victorious over the grave? That sounds awfully absolute. I am a disciple of Jesus (unworthy). I have never seen Him bodily, but I believe He bodily resurrected from death, as do you. I suspect you've never seen Him either. Scripture and God's Spirit have proven His resurrection to me as surely as if I had seen His pierced hands myself. I suspect there were many Christians between the Resurrection and the Ascension who didn't get to see Jesus, and only heard of His resurrection. So, there is another way to know. "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29 KJV). I believe Jesus' bodily resurrection was a display of His Deity, but I don't think display was it purpose.

Candlepower

They do fit don't they? You demand a bodily resurrection by Christ and for believers because you believe physical death was a result of the curse. Period. What proof do you have that "physical" death is a result of the curse. The Hebrews did not define death as we 21st century Westerns do...and that is the whole problem.

[Candlepower]

Mellontes,

Well, I tried. And as you have done with others who have attempted to carry on a rational conversation with you, you have disappointed me with your non sequitur response. With you, I'm bowing out. Enjoy obfuscating. Period.

Candlepower

[StephenPatrick]

Mellontes,

Well, I tried. And as you have done with others who have attempted to carry on a rational conversation with you, you have disappointed me with your non sequitur response. With you, I'm bowing out. Enjoy obfuscating. Period.

Candlepower

Good evening.

Candlepower, you didn't try at all. Obfuscate means to make unclear or to confuse. I don't see any of that in Mellontes posts. He's been very clear. He is a full preterist. He believes all has been fulfilled and he has done a pretty good job of backing that up, with scripture, and with the proper meaning of the words in the text being discussed. If you disagree with him, then tell him why and show scripture to make your point. If you don't quite understand it, then ask him to explain some more. Seems you are the one with the poor attitude and ability to respond back. It also seems that some have the ability to read emotion in his answers, as if he is being pompous. I can't, so how can you? Does he sound confident? Yes he does. For over 2 years I asked many questions to him concerning preterism. Most of the time he gave me a few nuggets of information, and then many questions for me to answer. He made me do the work. And it isn't easy. I came to this forum and another one to learn and dig as to what the scriptures say. 99% of the time I just read instead of participate. Steve Gregg was the first teacher for me to not only interpret the New Testament with the OT but show confidence in his answers. Mellontes does the same. I don't always agree with Steve or Mellontes, but I certainly would never leave in a huff and puff and cast scorn upon either of them because I might not get it.

Keep it up Mellontes. Some of us are here to learn.

Steve

[Mellontes]

Mellontes,

Well, I tried. And as you have done with others who have attempted to carry on a rational conversation with you, you have disappointed me with your non sequitur response. With you, I'm bowing out. Enjoy obfuscating. Period.

Candlepower

Good evening.

Candlepower, you didn't try at all. Obfuscate means to make unclear or to confuse. I don't see any of that in Mellontes posts. He's been very clear. He is a full preterist. He believes all has been fulfilled and he has done a pretty good job of backing that up, with scripture, and with the proper meaning of the words in the text being discussed. If you disagree with him, then tell him why and show scripture to make your point. If you don't quite understand it, then ask him to explain some more. Seems you are the one with the poor attitude and ability to respond back. It also seems that some have the ability to read emotion in his answers, as if he is being pompous. I can't, so how can you? Does he sound confident? Yes he does. For over 2 years I asked many questions to him concerning preterism. Most of the time he gave me a few nuggets of information, and then many questions for me to answer. He made me do the work. And it isn't easy. I came to this forum and another one to learn and dig as to what the scriptures say. 99% of the time I just read instead of participate. Steve Gregg was the first teacher for me to not only interpret the New Testament with the OT but show confidence in his answers. Mellontes does the same. I don't always agree with Steve or Mellontes, but I certainly would never leave in a huff and puff and cast scorn upon either of them because I might not get it.

Keep it up Mellontes. Some of us are here to learn.

Steve

Steve,

What!! You don't agree with everything I say...lol.

Don't be too hard on candlepower. It is very difficult to support what you believe by presenting the verses. As a 20-year dispensationalist, I know this to be true. I would always look up what someone else from dispensationalism would say and use that as a response. I was very hard-pressed to do my own digging. Few people actually do their own digging. They usually rely upon someone else...

But you are right, There are many who have left off interacting when I ask them very pointed questions and require that their answers be backed with Scripture. I appreciate those who continue to interact with their understanding of Scriptures. Iron sharpens iron. Assertions and opinions only dull minds.

I'm hoping that look2jesus has checked his private messages of late...

[Michelle]

Hi Mellontes,

I have a question for you. I promise to try to control my snippiness.

Romans 6:5 - For if we HAVE BEEN PLANTED [past tense] together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

The likeness of His death is compared to the likeness of the resurrection.

You took measures to emphasize the past tense of the phrase 'have been planted' in this verse. What do you make of the future tense of the phrase 'we shall be' in the latter half of the verse?

[Mellontes]

Hi Mellontes,

I have a question for you. I promise to try to control my snippiness.

Romans 6:5 - For if we HAVE BEEN PLANTED [past tense] together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

The likeness of His death is compared to the likeness of the resurrection.

You took measures to emphasize the past tense of the phrase 'have been planted' in this verse. What do you make of the future tense of the phrase 'we shall be' in the latter half of the verse?

I guess I look at it from a cause and effect basis...a since this then that sort of thing. You may see it as referring to a future physical resurrection.
My whole point is that those living Christians had been planted in the likeness of His death. How they could have been planted in the likeness of His physical death is beyond me. But being planted in His spiritual death (separation from God as was Adam on the DAY he died) is something I can accept. This was the normal Hebraic understanding of the death. The ministration of death (the law, old covenant) were not statutes dealing with physical death, were they? They were dealing with being out of covenant with God. These (along with the nation of Israel's practice of them) would represent the shadows and types eventually fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ, the new covenant. I am fairly certain you would agree with that.

This whole "being planted" thingy reminds me of the seed analogy from 1 Corinthians 15 where all those present passive verbs are used. No one has bothered to discuss those verbs although I have tried to bring it to the forefront on at least a couple of occasions. The present passives are mentioned near the end of this post: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ive#p40724.

Hope this helps a tiny bit...

[TK]

Hey Mellontes-

Just a quick side question. What do you have against believers someday having a glorified physical body, like Jesus had post-resurrection? You seem like you would be bummed out if that were true, but I think it would be awesome.

I guess what I am saying is this- do you see some advantage to being a disembodied spirit, like a ghost, vs. having a more corporeal form? (of course I realize that if you believe scriptures clearly teach we will not have a physical body, then you just have to deal with that fact).

I guess part of the reason I am asking this is because I am not exactly sure what FP's believe in regard to a believer's experience after they die (physically). If you could succinctly answer this question (w/o telling me to look up 30 or 40 verses or asking me to first answer a bunch of questions) it would perhaps be helpful to my understanding.

TK

[Michelle]

Thank you, Mellontes.

I guess I look at it from a cause and effect basis...a since this then that sort of thing.

When do you see the effect taking place? 70 AD?

You may see it as referring to a future physical resurrection.

I do.

My whole point is that those living Christians had been planted in the likeness of His death. How they could have been planted in the likeness of His physical death is beyond me.

It makes sense to me. As Homer mentioned up-thread, the context is baptism; verse 3 says when we are baptized into Christ Jesus, we are baptized into his death. How can you separate his physical death from the spiritual death you say he suffered at the same time? We are united with Christ in his death. That's what it is saying. Jesus physically died, for the atonement of our sins, and we are united with him in that death. Jesus rose physically from the dead, and we are also untied with him in that. And since Christ is risen, so shall we. (1Cor 15:20, 23)

But being planted in His spiritual death (separation from God as was Adam on the DAY he died) is something I can accept.

I don't understand why we would have been planted with Jesus in his spiritual death since have all spiritually died.

This was the normal Hebraic understanding of the death. The ministration of death (the law, old covenant) were not statutes dealing with physical death, were they? They were dealing with being out of covenant with God. These (along with the nation of Israel's practice of them) would represent the shadows and types eventually fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ, the new covenant. I am fairly certain you would agree with that.

I'll get back to you on this sometime soon. I'm not sure I entirely agree.

This whole "being planted" thingy reminds me of the seed analogy from 1 Corinthians 15 where all those present passive verbs are used. No one has bothered to discuss those verbs although I have tried to bring it to the forefront on at least a couple of occasions. The present passives are mentioned near the end of this post: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ive#p40724.

Okay, I'll look at it.

You asked what verse(s) promise us a resurrected body. Here are a couple:

Romans 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. (ESV)

1 Corintians 15: 53-54 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." (ESV)

Edited to add: I just saw that your interpretation of the above two verses from 1 Corinthians 15 is that it all has to do with the heavy burden of the Law being replaced by the light yoke of Christ Jesus. I don't understand that.

Hope this helps a tiny bit...

Yes, thank you.

[steve7150]

This was the normal Hebraic understanding of the death. The ministration of death (the law, old covenant) were not statutes dealing with physical death, were they? They were dealing with being out of covenant with God. These (along with the nation of Israel's practice of them) would represent the shadows and types eventually fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ, the new covenant. I am fairly certain you would agree with that.

I'll get back to you on this sometime soon. I'm not sure I entirely agree






Of course Paul was writing to gentiles who would have no knowledge of the so called hebraic understanding.