The Resurrection of Jesus

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟432,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One must deny the plain meaning of language in Scripture to declare Jesus is no longer a man.

1-Resurrection must be changed from body to without a body
2-Body(soma) always means physical in nature never immaterial regarding man
3-son of man must be changed to mean not human
4-flesh and bones must be changed to mean not real flesh
5- Jesus said He was flesh and bones not a spirit

and the list goes on and on. The biblical view harmonizes all the above like I have demonstrated in this thread.

hope this helps !!!
One must deny the plain meaning of language in Scripture to declare Jesus is no longer a man.

1. Not true. It's from a Mortal Body to a Spiritual Body. Bodies aren't led by the Spirit, men are led by the Spirit. The dichotomy is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.-- It's a spiritual body, not a body from the dust of the ground.

2. Straw man argument. I'm not claiming the Spiritual body is immaterial, just not flesh and blood.

Vincent word studies:
1. Of the living human body, Romans 4:19; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 9:27; 1 Corinthians 12:12-26.
2. Of the Church as the body of Christ, Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 1:18, etc. Σάρξ flesh, never in this sense.
3. Of plants and heavenly bodies, 1 Corinthians 15:37, 1 Corinthians 15:40.
4. Of the glorified body of Christ, Philippians 3:21.
5. Of the spiritual body of risen believers, 1 Corinthians 15:44.

3. Straw man argument again. See 4.

4. He's no longer "in the days of His flesh", "in the days of" is a phrase that always denotes a period of time that has a beginning and end, every time it's used.

5. Agreed. Are you claiming that the same body that died on the cross, that was raised whereby Mary mistook for the gardener is His heavenly glorious body?
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟432,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The very spirit of antichrist teaches that Jesus no longer remains in the flesh.

John says this is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate in the flesh ?

1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

2 John 7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

All these Greek scholars are in agreement that Jesus is still in the flesh, a man with a real human body of flesh as the Creeds of Christendom proclaim and the Apostles in the N.T. Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. Luke 24:39

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 7


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)

Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.

Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

hope this helps !!!

So, your translation is "Jesus Christ has come, is and will come in the flesh is from God,"
Not even any of the paraphrases translate it that way, much less the gentlemen you quote. you manipulate their words to try to give it your translation.
The very spirit of antichrist teaches that Jesus no longer remains in the flesh.

John says this is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate in the flesh ?

1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

2 John 7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

All these Greek scholars are in agreement that Jesus is still in the flesh, a man with a real human body of flesh as the Creeds of Christendom proclaim and the Apostles in the N.T. Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. Luke 24:39

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 7


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)

Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.

Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

hope this helps !!!
Your translation reads:By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come, is and will come in the flesh is from God;
Not even the paraphrases try to say that.
" Present middle participle of ‎erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied.
Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So, your translation is "Jesus Christ has come, is and will come in the flesh is from God,"
Not even any of the paraphrases translate it that way, much less the gentlemen you quote. you manipulate their words to try to give it your translation.

Your translation reads:By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come, is and will come in the flesh is from God;
Not even the paraphrases try to say that.
" Present middle participle of ‎erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied.
Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.
If you sought out the Greek participles(present tense) and their meaning in 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7 like I provided from numerous Greek Scholars, Theologians who are linguistic Experts you would see the truth instead of your interpretation.

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 7


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)

Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.

Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

hope this helps !!!
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟432,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The very spirit of antichrist teaches that Jesus no longer remains in the flesh.

John says this is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate in the flesh ?

1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

2 John 7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

All these Greek scholars are in agreement that Jesus is still in the flesh, a man with a real human body of flesh as the Creeds of Christendom proclaim and the Apostles in the N.T. Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have. Luke 24:39

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 7


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)

Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.

Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

hope this helps !!!
None of these scholars are saying that Christ is still in the flesh of His incarnation. Even Marshall who seems to say what you want him to say, uses the past tense verbs "existed" and "remained".
Otherwise, I have no disagreement with them at all. For, if Christ hadn't manifested himself to me, I wouldn't know Him. Going to the incarnation itself of John 1: 14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Dwelt:
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 4637 skēnóō – properly, to pitch or live in a tent, "denoting much more than the mere general notion of dwelling" (M. Vincent). For the Christian, 4637 (skēnóō) is dwelling in intimate communion with the resurrected Christ – even as He who Himself lived in unbroken communion with the Father during the days of His flesh (Jn 1:14). See 4638 (skēnōma).

John 20:28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
If you thought it through, I don't think you would say He's still in the flesh of His incarnation.
Seriously, you can't possibly believe that the Christ Paul saw on the road to Damascus is in the same body that went to the cross.
 
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
None of these scholars are saying that Christ is still in the flesh of His incarnation. Even Marshall who seems to say what you want him to say, uses the past tense verbs "existed" and "remained".
Otherwise, I have no disagreement with them at all. For, if Christ hadn't manifested himself to me, I wouldn't know Him. Going to the incarnation itself of John 1: 14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Dwelt:
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 4637 skēnóō – properly, to pitch or live in a tent, "denoting much more than the mere general notion of dwelling" (M. Vincent). For the Christian, 4637 (skēnóō) is dwelling in intimate communion with the resurrected Christ – even as He who Himself lived in unbroken communion with the Father during the days of His flesh (Jn 1:14). See 4638 (skēnōma).

John 20:28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
If you thought it through, I don't think you would say He's still in the flesh of His incarnation.
Seriously, you can't possibly believe that the Christ Paul saw on the road to Damascus is in the same body that went to the cross.
Everyone I quoted does Ed so why misrepresent them ?

in RED for all to see I'm correct not you !

Do you even know the meaning of the word Incarnation ?

Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 7


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)

Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.

Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

hope this helps !!!
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟432,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What you're telling me is that you don't know the difference between human nature and a human body.
A human nature is who you are, not what you're clothed in. Even Satan can hide his true nature by coming as an angel of light.
He became a man and a mans body has a circulatory system that flows blood to their flesh, organs, etc. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
 
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What you're telling me is that you don't know the difference between human nature and a human body.
A human nature is who you are, not what you're clothed in. Even Satan can hide his true nature by coming as an angel of light.
He became a man and a mans body has a circulatory system that flows blood to their flesh, organs, etc. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
another misnomer "flesh and blood" means CORRUPLIBLE . Jesus flesh upon His Resurrection is INCORROPTIBLE.

next....................................
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟432,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
another misnomer "flesh and blood" means CORRUPLIBLE . Jesus flesh upon His Resurrection is INCORROPTIBLE.

next....................................
I see, but flesh means a physical body lol. Jesus never saw corruption
next.....................................
 
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I see, but flesh means a physical body lol. Jesus never saw corruption
next.....................................
So His body IS Incorruptible hence the bodily(flesh) Resurrection/Ascension of Jesus
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums