Docetic Dave Green apparently takes issue with the Apostle Paul’s own account of seeing Jesus of Nazareth raised from the dead on the Damascus road. Doectic Dave writes,
Talbotism vs. Scripture
Greg Kiser:
Paul considers himself to have seen Christ in the same
manner in which the others saw him; yet Paul saw Jesus
post-ascension. . . . I used to be an FP and argue that at
the ascension Jesus put off His physical resurrected bodySam Frost:
Greg, that is an excellent point. . . . [Paul] had “seen” Jesus
in “appearance” exactly as the Apostles did in his post
resurrection appearances. In setting up this fact, clearlly
Jesus “died” and “rose from the dead” in the self-same
body and “appeared” in his resurrection body to the
witnesses, and lastly “appeared” in the same manner to
Paul: bodily. . . .Paul Gates:
Exactly. . . The man Jesus of Nazareth died, was buried and
came back to life inclusive of His body, never to die again.
Paul claims he appeared to him just like He did to Thomas.Scripture:
“Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19).My [Docetic Dave’s] response:
This is at least the third time in less than a year that Talbotism has made this …”mistake,” and …”forgot” that Acts 26:19 was in the Bible.The other two times were April 5, 2011 and September 26, 2011.
The “folk” theology of the RINO’s, as Dr Roger Olson puts it, comes to the forefront at PreteristCosmos. Docetic Dave, no doubt driven by his Docetic view of reality chooses to discount Paul’s own story revealing his semi-literacy when it comes to the Bible. Evidently Docetic Dave thinks Luke contradicted Paul’s witness to what occurred on the road to Damascus. However, if Docetic Dave wasn’t subject to “folk” theology, he would understand what Paul claims in 1 Cor. 9:1, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” and again as explained above Paul equates his experience to that of Thomas, “he [that be Jesus of Nazareth] appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” 1 Cor. 15:8,9
So what are we to make of Docetic Dave’s less than astute suggestion someone forgot a pertinent text to the discussion? Is that the case or is this simply a case of recognizing the text for what it is? Does Luke indicate Paul didn’t see Jesus of Nazareth as the Apostle himself claims? What would Luke’s motives have been to portray the encounter as he did in the three narratives as found in Acts 9:3; 22.6; 26.12?
I don’t suppose it ever occurred to the Gnostic-like RINO’s this issue has been dealt with before? I mean, besides 1 John 4:2 which states Christ Jesus “is”, not “was” God incarnate, a text btw Docetic Dave has chosen to ignore there is a reason Christianity didn’t succumb to Mr. Green’s forebears. Docetic Dave’s forebears are the first heretics Christianity confronted, known as “Christian” Gnostics. A real point of amusement is Docetic Dave and his colleagues suggestion they are providing a “refinement” of Christian eschatology.
However back to the Apostle’s testimony, something Docetic Dave apparently discounts, not only does Paul explain, “…there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. 2:5. And while Mr. Green and his colleagues seem incapable of realizing dead men are still men, not “sub-human”, at least, unlike Mr. Green and his colleagues, it wasn’t lost on the ancients the distinguishing feature between a live man and a dead one was their live body. This basic feature, clearly lost on the Gnostic-like RINO’s, is no doubt what led the Apostle Paul who, as noted claims he actually saw Jesus of Nazareth to write, “Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” Col. 2:3,9
It’s almost as if Paul knew Docetic Dave’s argument before Mr. Green ever argued his case!
Clearly the term “bodily” is lost on Docetic Dave, who somehow fails to grasp live men have live bodies. Apparently Docetic Dave thinks a live man possesses a body that isn’t human. This shouldn’t be that surprising as he classifies dead men as subhuman. Perhaps Docetic Dave will coin a new term, something to the effect of “spiritman” because we all know, according to his Gnostic-like way of viewing the world, the resurrection of the dead entails men in the presence of Christ short their bodies.
Back to the subject at hand, which is, as you will recall, Docetic Dave’s suggestion Luke contradicted Paul. So what are we left with? Is Luke contradicting Paul’s explicit testimony on the subject by relating the events he did as Mr. Green would seem to suggest? Is not only Mr. Green but Luke as well making Paul out to be a liar? Surely there has to be an answer? And indeed there is.
After providing several accounts of the literary techniques employed during the second temple period Dr. N.T. Wright, whom I don’t believe would be accused of “biblical semi-literacy” or maintaining “folk” theology explains,
“Luke’s underlying aim, and perhaps that of his original sources, seems to have been to tell the story in such a way as to align Paul with the prophets and visionaries of Israel’s history, and also (less certainly, but with strong possibility) to place him alongside penitent pagans who turned round and went in a new direction. This serves as both an apologia for Paul’s new life and work, a legitimation of him in the eyes of potentially puzzled or hostile readers, and a heightening of the dramatic tension as the story is repeated in a crescendo to accompany Paul’s progress, through riots and trials, to his eventual arrival in Rome. Luke, ever the artist, has painted a portrait, so as to bring out the features that will speak to his intended audience.”[i] Thus Luke isn’t contradicting Paul he is telling the story of the event in such a way as to maximize the impact. Dr. Wright, contradicting Docetic Dave once again,goes on to explain “The accounts [Luke’s and Paul’s] dovetail quite well. But the historical conclusion from their juxtaposition cannot be that Paul did not after all see Jesus (which neither of them say), or that he ‘saw’ Jesus only with his mind or heart (which, again, neither of them say). You can put apples and pears together and make a fruit salad; you cannot make a pork pie. Paul says that he saw Jesus, and that remains our primary historical datum.”[ii]
I think Dr. Wright’s point about the pork pie is a suggestion Mr. Green is holding onto a sow’s ear as it relates to this issue. I know, I know, we didn’t provide any scripture to back up our claim, (LOL!) nor was our claim supported by expert testimony, (ROFL!). But hey, what are purveyors of “folk” theology left to lob at the Christian point of view on the matter if not false assertions. However, what is truly interesting is that apparently Docetic Dave’s own view of things clearly calls into question the Apostle Paul’s explicit testimony on the issue. Clearly the Gnostic-like RINO’s don’t stop at calling anyone a liar! You got to wonder when the RINO’s will cease and desist from bearing false witness. Truly they could use some firsthand instruction by Thomas. Even Thomas grasped the idea, “…Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Luke 24:39. It is a sad commentary when men will allow their traditions, as the RINO’s have done, to over-ride Scriptures clear teaching on the matter
Great summation Paul.
Ken,
Thank you,
God Bless,
Paul, what is really sad is that it is so painfully obvious it is a pity that one has to go to such great lengths to explain it! When I was an FP I was always trying to explain away the obvious. Now I’m back to explaining the obvious. It is refreshing actually. Hahaha
Greg,
I pray more like you will come to the realization like you the fallacious nature of the view.
God Bless,
Folks,
Docetic Dave Green responds,
“I’ll respond to one of those points:
The fact that Paul saw Jesus in a “heavenly vision” does not mean that Paul did not see Jesus. No one has in any way suggested that Paul did not see Jesus.”
Gee then you have to wonder why Docetic Dave claimed Paul seeing Jesus of Nazareth as had the other Apostle’s was somehow contra Scripture? Perhaps Docetic Dave thinks there are two Jesus’ of Nazareth? This makes about as much sense as the strength of Mr. Green’s reasoned argument in defense of his position as best summed up here.
“My response:
Colonel Sanders comes to mind once again.”
We find Docetic Dave still holding that sow’s ear which seems to fit him well. Clearly that Mr. Green employs the term “fact” without offering any direct evidence from Paul’s writings indicates the post flew by his Docetic notions. But, hey this would be typical for the purveyor of folk theology. BTW, that he continues to bear a false witness isn’t surprising.
God Bless,
Folks,
Evidently Docetic Dave felt compelled to clarify his statement. Mr. Green writes,
Wow, Docetic Dave sure is confused. First he complains the suggestion his position places Luke and Paul at odds over his encounter with Christ Jesus, then he turns around and reinforces that point by writing what he did above. Evidently all Docetic Dave can produce is confused nonsense over the issue.
As you will recall, we pointed out in the Blog, neither Luke nor Paul explain he did not see the man Christ Jesus of Nazareth just like the other apostles had seen him. Indeed, Paul’s direct witness to the fact is that he did see Christ Jesus as had the other apostles which in fact contradicts Mr. Green’s reading into the accounts offered by Luke.
As we pointed out Paul explicitly explains, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). Notice, Paul doesn’t say he saw a “vision” of Christ Jesus our Lord as Dr. N.T. Wright points out. Additionally Paul goes out of his way to explain, “he [Christ Jesus] appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he [Christ Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he [Christ Jesus] appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Christ Jesus] appeared also to me” (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Nowhere in the account does Paul indicate Christ Jesus appeared to him differently than He had the others. Thus Paul unequivocally points out, as Dr. Wright attests, he saw the man Jesus of Nazareth, raised from the dead, just like the other apostles had, which is after all the basis for his claim of apostolic authority.
As we demonstrated, which was corroborated by N.T. Wright, Docetic Dave’s position requires Luke, whose account was written after Paul’s direct statements, to contradict Paul. None of the accounts in Acts written by Luke indicate Paul did not see Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh as Docetic Dave claims. This is simply Mr. Green reading his Gnostic-like view into the text which as we’ve indicated contradicts Paul’s explicit claim. Not a very solid position. We do agree with Mr. Green, Acts 26:29 gives no support that Christ Jesus is God incarnate. But that isn’t the point, the point though, Paul’s own account written by him on the matter does support Christ Jesus is God incarnate. And as pointed out by Dr. Wright there is no reason to believe Luke was contradicting Paul’s written record of what he did see.
Paul’s own hand written account of the matter is the “datum”, as Dr. Wright points out, that takes precedence, not Docetic Dave’s Gnostic-like misguided and frankly foolish interpretation of the text. However, what this does demonstrate is that Mr. Green prefers to speculate over nonsense than seriously deal with Scripture. Mr. Green is still holding a sow’s ear which as the old adage goes, is impossible to turn into a silk purse. I see no reason to provide further comment on Mr. Green’s absurd nonsense. Sure, Paul writes explicitly he saw Jesus just like the other apostle’s had but because Luke opts to employ literary license to draw impact to his story, he contradicts Paul suggesting what he really saw was a vision of a “spiritman”, (LOL!). Sure Dave, Luke contradicted Paul. Mr. Green’s position is patently absurd. Mr. Green hasn’t demonstrated the ability to employ the basics of sound reasoning, but he has reinforced the idea he is in bondage to his “folk” theology. We pray God grant him repentance unto the truth.
God Bless,
Act 7:55 But he (Stephen), full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Gill’s commentary: ‘and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; of that glory which was a Symbol of him: Jesus being risen from the dead, and ascended on high, was set at the right hand of God, in human nature, and so was visible to the corporeal eye of Stephen; whose visual faculty was so extraordinarily enlarged and assisted, as to reach the body of Christ in the third heavens; where he was seen by him standing, to denote his readiness to assist him, and his indignation at his enemies.”
I think this verse is another proof that Jesus retains His humanity in heaven. We can contrast Stephen seeing the Glory of God to Stephen seeing Jesus standing beside him.
Sharon
Green responds:
Hey Dave, why not quote some of the other references given in the “Treasury of Scripture Knowledge”?
The TSK shows:
>blockquote>I see: Act_10:11, Act_10:16; Eze_1:1; Mat_3:16; Mar_1:10; Luk_3:21; Rev_4:1, Rev_11:19, Rev_19:11
I highlighted the verses Dave quoted. But Dave why doesn’t address Matthew 3:16 or Mark 1:10 or Luke 3:21?
Mat 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; 17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mar 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him: 11 and a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.
Luk 3:21 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
So if we are to believe Green’s “exegesis” (via “the heavens were opened”, I guess Jesus didn’t see any of this happening and He (or noone else) heard the voice of God.
Green calls my view “wooden literalism” but I could counter this with a charge against Green of “wooden spiritualism.”
Sharon
Sharon,
Thank you for bringing up this text. Simon J. Kistemaker in his commentary notes on the passage, “Stephen is permitted to see God’s glory, not in a vision, but in reality. At the beginning of the trial Stephen’s face had a heavenly glow like the face of an angel (6:15). At the conclusion of the trail he sees God’s glory. Although Scripture asserts that no one is able to see God and live, God’s glory has often been revealed to man (compare Ps. 63:2; Isa. 6:1; John 12:41). In addition to observing God’s glory, Stephen sees Jesus standing, not sitting, at the right hand of God.” (NTC, Acts, Simon J. Kistemaker, Baker, pg. 278).
Interestingly enough Dr. Kistemaker goes on to point out, “Stephen is inviting his audience to look up to heaven and see Jesus in person at his place of honor. He calls Jesus “the Son of man,” which is the title Jesus used exclusively for himself to reveal that man (Dan 7:13-14). According to the Gospel accounts, people never refer to or address Jesus by that name. Stephen’s remark is the exception to that practice. Why does he use this title? Because Stephen fully recognizes that Jesus as the Son of man has fulfilled the messianic prophecy (Dan 7:13-14) and has been given all authority, power, and dominion in both heaven and earth (Matt 28:18)” (Ibid, pg 279)
Kind of hard for the Son of man to have that authority if He no longer exists as the Son of man which of course would be the logical conclusion following the patently absurd arguments of the hyperpreterists who claim the Christ Jesus is no longer God incarnate. Coincidently I found this quote from Gregory Nazianzen circa 389 which seems germane to the discussion at hand.
I certainly wish the hyperpreterists would cease attempting to change the argument claiming they are bringing something new to the table. What Docetic Dave and his colleagues avow has been condemned as anathema from the start. However, what we must keep in mind is that it really isn’t Dr. Roger Olson who points out Mr. Green and his colleagues are demonstrating biblical semi-literacy for advocating the positions they do. No, Dr. Olson hasn’t pointed out their claims are illustrative of laymen swept up by folk theology drived from spiritualism. Nor did N. T. Wright point out their claims make out that Luke contradicts Paul’s own witness. Nor did Dr. Wright explain they just don’t get it. Nor would it seem G.K.Beale places them as an opponent of Paul for what it is they claim. And finally, Mr. Nazianzen wasn’t asseting the RINO’s are anathema for denying Christ Jesus IS God incarnate. Nah, those are all vile ugly things conjured up here at Preteristblog. Simply “lies”! What can you say, other than you just have to feel sorry for those so steeped in their traditions they deny the truth.
God Bless,
Paul, glad you brought up Kistemeyers comments. I believe they explain Stephen’s experience very well. And Stephens experience is similar to Moses.
Act 6:15 And all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.
Which is reminiscent of:
Act 7:38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him [Moses] in the Mount Sinai,
Who would deny that Moses had an actual, literal experience of God on Mt. Sainai?
Exo 34:35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
Sharon
And before the full/hyper preterist can object by saying the Old Testament was “literal/physical” but the New Testament is all about the “spiritual”, let me say that it IS the full/hyper preterist who claim that the Old Testament wasn’t obsolved until AD70.
IOW, it was “okay” for there to be literal/physical manifestations in the Old Testament, but once we get to the New Testament, its all about the spiritual. So I don’t think they have a leg to stand on in regards to that argument.
What this ultimately means is that when it suits them, the Old Testament was still in affect until AD70, but when it doesn’t suit them, it wasn’t. That is pretty much what they end up proposing. Their view is all over the place in this regard.
They may want to try to discount me from saying this, but remember, I was a full/hyper preterist for many years and whether they want to admit this or not isn’t the problem. The problem is, this IS what they do. It’s not an issue of “already / not yet” because their “already” is the same at their “not yet”, i.e. spiritual.
Sharon
Sharon,
The silliness and utter nonsense coming from the RINO’s is amazing. Ed writes, “At best its an argument from silence to claim that Paul did not say he did not see a fleshly body. “ Gee, I wonder what kind of body the man Christ Jesus, (1 Tim. 2:5) Ed thinks Paul was referring to when Paul claimed Christ Jesus was embodied, (Col 2:8,9)? Evidently Ed is aware of some Biblical grounds which support the concept that live “embodied” men have some other type of body other than a human body.
Of course though this is the point, Ed’s colleague Doectic Dave Green is in fact arguing from silence because he has produced no text written by Paul or otherwise which stipulates when Paul saw Christ Jesus He no longer had His human body. In fact as pointed out above Paul states explicitly and unequivocally just the opposite, Christ Jesus is an embodied man, at least, if we are to believe Paul’s explicit witness on the matter.
Frankly, I think the utter silliness of the RINO’s as exemplified by Ed’s comment in lieu of the fact Mr. Green is actually the one arguing from silence illustrates there is no getting around the fact those folks simply don’t want to engage in reasoned argument. They can’t deal with Scripture; they argue a position which requires Luke to have contradicted Paul which in turn calls into question the ability of the Holy Spirit to ensure His inspired authors kept their stories straight. What an absurd position they have painted themselves into.
God Bless,
Love the contrast of Stephen seeing God’s glory alongside of Stephen seeing the risen/ascended Man, Christ Jesus. What an awesome thought.
Paul, I gotta say, when I was an FP (1995-2011), I was completely unaware of the significance of the issue of the body of Jesus Christ. I thought maintaining the bodily resurrection of Christ only as a sign was enough to remain INSIDE orthodoxy. I knew that I had to get rid of Jesus’ physical body in order to maintain the 2nd-coming of Christ in AD70, but I didn’t realize the implications of such a view. That’s right, I really didn’t. It did not occur to me for that long a time that Jesus was forever incarnate! Sad for me and certainly not a testimony to my diligence in studying (although I never stopped studying!).
Being classical reformed Arminian (not Pelagian), Sam Frost’s problems with infinity, in the manner he presented them (from a Calvinistic point of view) didn’t really disturb my FP all that much (until later when I thought more about it). But when he pointed out that Jesus was forever incarnate, I was very intrigued and searched the matter out.
Wow, was I completely stunned at what I found in the ancient Christian dead guys (”church fathers”) and EVERY single scholarly commentary. Sheesh. Now THAT seriously disturbed me. I could see the validity of Jesus being forever incarnate and I immediately did what I never thought I could do… reject FP as patently false.
Your blog and Sam’s are really helping me understand. I’m not quite as direct (i.e. harsh) as you in my presentation to an FP simply because I KNOW I was just like them at one time. It is hard for me to refer to Dave Green as “Docetic Dave” when I realize that from 1994 to 2011 I was Docetic Greg and didn’t even realize it!
Thanks for the great blog. Keep up the work, brother.
P.S. Paul, your method of defending the faith doesn’t offend me, btw. Neither does Jason’s supposed perceived “meanness.” Truth comes packaged in many ways through many very different vessels. Actually, I’m quite the smart alek in real life.
“Love the contrast of Stephen seeing God’s glory alongside of Stephen seeing the risen/ascended Man, Christ Jesus. What an awesome thought.”
Thats what I thought too Greg! It truly is an awesome thought! :o)
Greg,
I appreciate your thoughts. I’m not sure where your research into the ascended Christ Jesus has led you but here are a couple of books that go into the issue in-depth, “The Forgotten Christ” edited by Stephen Clark and “Jesus Ascend” by Gerrit Scott Dawson. The later work has a ton of in-depth stuff from the early church on the subject.
I tell you after reading this stuff I had a different perspective on the Lord’s Supper.
God Bless,
Folks,
Another example demonstrating Docetic Dave doesn’t want to engage in an honest discussion regarding what Scripture conveys. The guy whose admitted world-view is Gnostic-like writes,
“Implied” seems to be code for “arguing from silence”, wink, wink as Mr. Bennett would put it. However, the reader shouldn’t find it odd that Mr. Green deal’s exclusively with what he infers by “implication” of Luke’s account of the Pauline encounter with Christ Jesus. Mr. Green does this while ignoring what Paul wrote himself on the issue. Ironically enough Mr. Green recently wrote,
“The Apostle Paul saw NO flesh when he physically saw, with his own eyes, the vision of the post-Ascension, heavenly Jesus. Acts 26:29 gives no support whatsoever for the idea that Jesus remains in His flesh in heaven. If anything, it contradicts it.”
Notwithstanding the fact Mr. Green is reading into the text what he believes is “implied, while having absolutely NO corroborating evidence from any of the Pauline corpus. However, his recognition that in fact reading the text as he does contradicts, as N.T. Wright points out, Paul’s explicit witness as to what he did see. Odd, Mr. Green and his colleagues would accuse yours truly of lying when in fact he turns right around and affirms our assessment of his argument.
Nevertheless, just to reiterate, here are the facts. Paul tells the Corinthians circa AD50 or so that he saw Jesus, just like the other apostle’s had seen Jesus, (1 Cor.9:1; 15:5-8), which is why he is an apostle. And notwithstanding the fact, Mr. Green has yet to provide evidence from Paul that would support his assertion Paul did not see the embodied man Christ Jesus, as had the other apostle’s. Furthermore, Mr. Green has failed in dealing with what Paul did explicitly write. Paul claims Jesus is a “man” 1 Tim 2:5 circa AD55 and claims He has His body, Col 2:8,9 circa AD58. Mr. Green has yet to provide SCRIPTUAL support for the idea according to Paul Christ Jesus “WAS” not “IS” God incarnate.
And finally, Mr. Green has yet to explain why it is based on what Paul actually wrote Mr. Green’s “interpretation” of what he thinks is “implied” in Luke’s account does not contradict Paul’s personal testimony on the matter, as Dr. N.T. Wright explains it does. Mr. Green relies on what he believes is implied denying Paul’s explicit statement, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Mr. Green is employing intellectually dishonest in not dealing with the implication of his own position which is that what Luke wrote in Act’s circa AD62 would have contradicted what Paul directly told the Corinthians twelve years earlier.
I doubt any of the contributors and or colleagues of Mr. Green’s will hold him accountable by noting what he claims is “implication” is in fact arguing from silence and in fact contradicts Paul’s direct, explicit testimony on what it is he saw.
God Bless,
Paul, thanks for the awesome book recommendations. I found an excerpt from the Introduction of Dawson’s book that is pertinent:
“But what kind of ascension occurred? Though we seldom think of it at all, we may have a vague notion that while Jesus rose up into the clouds before his disciples’ eyes, as recorded in Acts 1, when he got beyond their sight he slipped from the body, dissolving, as it were, into the spiritual realm. C.S. Lewis observes:
“‘We also, in our heart of hearts, tend to slur over the risen manhood of Jesus, to conceive Him, after death, simply returning to Deity, so that the Resurrection would be no more than the reversal or undoing of the Incarnation.’ (C.S. Lewis, Miracles (Glasgow: Fontana Books, 1960), pg. 151)
“In this way, we may believe that he went up, but suspect that as soon as the audio-visual demonstration of his departure was completed, he dropped the body of flesh and went back to being the eternal Son of God. This spiritualizing is a more appealing idea than some sort of space travel to a distant heaven that is nonetheless part of the known universe.
“Yet, enormous theological problems are raised by disembodying Christ’s ascension. For instance, if it is the case that the Lord slipped out of the body, who, then, is sitting at the right hand of God? Is it Jesus, whose voice the disciples heard, whose touch they felt, with whom they sailed on the Sea of Galilee and shared the cup in the Upper Room? Or is it the eternal Son of God, who once knew what it was like to be a man but is no longer bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh? If the latter, what effect would a bodiless Christ have on the future work affirmed in the [Apostles'] Creed, his coming again and his judgement of the living and the dead?
“To put it bluntly, if Jesus did not go up as a man, he cannot come again as a man. The Judge would not be our Brother, not the one tempted in all ways as we are, not the man with the nail-scarred hands and the ‘rich wounds yet bisible above’. He might be God in that case, but he would not be human. And we would be lost.” (Gerrit Dawson, Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation, pg. 4,5)
I really wish Dave Green could see what he’s trading in! I really do! Sheesh, it is an awesome doctrine… my mind is reeling…
Hi Greg,
You wrote, “I gotta say, when I was an FP (1995-2011), I was completely unaware of the significance of the issue of the body of Jesus Christ.”
Same here Greg. It was when I backed up and starting studying the basics of our faith, is when I discovered I couldn’t be a full/hyper preterist because of the problems it causes in other areas.
Paul, thanks for the book recommendations. I ordered “Jesus Ascended” and really look forward to reading it. The reviews were great for it.
Blessings,
Sharon
Sharon,
The Forgotten Christ is very good as well. In fact G.K. Beale when he dealt with 1 Cor. 15:45 borrowed the argument from Dr. Richard Gaffin that was published in this book and included it in his book “A New Testament Biblical Theology, The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New”.
Greg,
I praise God you’ve found the doctrine as rewarding as I have.
God Bless,
Hi Paul,
Actually, after I wrote that last post I caved and bought that book too. lol I had some points saved up on my card so I though, why not!
Again, thanks for the recommendations. They look like very good books. :o)
Sharon
Green wrote, “Stephen saw a prophetic vision, not to be taken in a wooden literalism. Jesus is not literally/
physically/spatially standing beside God in
heaven.”
Does seeing a “vision” automatically mean that what the person sees isn’t real or factual? This is the sense that Green seems to take it. I could have a vision of something, and what I see in that vision is 100% literal. Just because it is seen in a supernatural manner, doesn’t automatically make what I see non-literal - which is the sense that Green seems to be taking it as.
.
Sharon
Green tates, “Response: Full preterists are not saying “the saints can exist without their humanity.”"
Then WHAT are full/hyper preterist’s saying?
They have already stated that Jesus doesn’t retain His humanity, which means His followers don’t retain their humanity, so what exactly is Green saying then?
Wonderful comments. It is plain and obvious that this denial of the body of Christ goes against the grain of Scripture. Like many of you, I did not see the connection between denying the body of Jesus and the gospel (as presented in the historic faith). This is not some issue they can “skirt” over. It goes directly to the definition of Jesus, the man, himself.
Sharon, when Dave says he affirms the humanity of Jesus, he is clearly REDEFINING what “human nature” means. Dave has his definition, and the orthodox faith has thiers (sorry, Dave, Talbot did not invent this - you might want to go back to Tertullian, Justin, Irenaeus, Gregory, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc - and let’s not forget Calvin, who EXPLICITLY affirms the “wooden literalism” of the body of Christ that you so vehemently deny). See, we have two DIFFERENT definitions of “human nature.” Dave wants to use his typical sophistry skills to play the shell game on the unsuspecting: “where was Jesus when his body was in heaven” game. Find the real Jesus. Was He under shell 1: the grave? Shell 2? Sheol? Shell three: Heaven? But, as we have shown, orthodoxy answered this shell game (the Gnostics played the same game) 1500 hundred years ago.
The Logos ‘became flesh’ and a human being at the point of conception: born of the virgin. He was a man, “fully like unto us in every way.” Now, as I am studying the patristics on this point, our bodies are uniquely our own. Our memories, etc. are shaped in communion with our bodies. Thus, the person (which is the result of body and soul) is, thus, ever connected with their body. In the Hebrew Scriptures, there is no consideration of existence “in heaven” apart from the body in that “Joseph” in heaven is the same Joseph that was formed with body and soul, resulting in the person, Joseph. Their is no “soul” Joseph, and then another “body Joseph.” There is only Joseph. It’s Joseph’s bones (not Moses’ or Frank’s). It’s Joseph’s body (not Tom’s or Susan’s). One Joseph. What is, even, the soul of joseph if not that considered from the LIFE of Joseph lived in the body? What? The body has NOTHING to do with the PERSON that results? Far from it. The body is part of the very thing that DEFINES, IMPRINTS, and SHAPES the person. A human person is not shaped without a body. Indeed, a human person cannot be as such without first having a body.
We deny “pre-existence of souls” on the very basis that the PERSON, Joseph, did not EXIST prior to conception. Joseph only existed AFTER conception. Man, then, is duality (one unity, two substances - soul and body) so that, even though he may exist, after the fact, from the body at death, IT IS STILL HIS BODY and is IDENTIFIED as such. “They asked, can we have the body of Jesus?” Whose body? Frank’s? Tom’s? No, Jesus’. HIS body. The body belonging to Him. The body of which it was absolutely necessary that he acquire in the immaculate conception in order that he, as God’s eternal Son, become fully human. Not for his knowledge or benefit, as if this added something to him in terms of being or knowledge, but FOR OUR BENEFIT. He “took on” himself, flesh.
The body of Jesus was in the tomb for three days. The spirit of Jesus was with the Father, in “paradise”. One unity (the man), two substances. Docetic Daves rather ignorant insistence (completely ignorant of thelogy on this point) charges of “sub human” and all of that only displays his High School level of theology. Jesus was never “sub human”. There is only “human” (unity) with two substances (soul and body). Using Green’s argument, since we argue that God is one Being in Three Persons, then Jesus is only a “part” of God…maybe a “sub god” since “whole” and “part” can be, as Green appears to understand it, means the person of the Spirit is only “part” of the one Being, God. Jesus the “person” is another “part”. Dave apparently cannot wrap his mind around this type of non-contradictory theological language. He cannot grasp, “one unity, two substances” or “one human being with two substances”. Robin, Ed, Mike B., Mike S. none of them grasp it. Perhaps that is because they suffer from timetextulitus - a disease that one suffers from the lack of being able to hold a conversaton unless it involves 666, AD 70, or the word “generation”. Mike S. suffers from it horribly.
See, they call these OTHER AREAS of theology “distractions”. Wonder why? Because it does not START the argument they want to arbitrarily start it. I would think that a good place to begin an argument about NT theology would simply be with Jesus. “Who do you say that I am?” Not, “when do you think that I am coming?” But, they take the latter question as the MOST important. Talking about the Person and two natures of Christ takes a BACKSEAT to eschatology, since, if eschatology demands that we redefine the orthodox view of the continuing incarnation of the Son “in heaven”, then SO BE IT!
Keep praying for them…..God has them there for a reason, if not to have some of them around in order to expose this fraudulent heresy for what it is to others who are truly seeking the Lord.
Folks,
I think this is another illustration that goes to prove the truth of Dr. Roger Olson’s claim regarding which those that advocate positions similar to Mr. Green’s. That is, they are purveyors of “Folk” theology, unreflective in thought. Apparently Docetic Dave thinks John Calvin is going to rescue him from the implications to his argument in lieu of what Paul wrote in Col 2:8,9. What’s clear is that Mr. Green didn’t think the argument through in lieu of what Calvin wrote.
Mr. Green posts Calvin’s comments on the term “bodily”, “For my part, I have no doubt that it is employed — not in a strict sense — as meaning substantially, [See Footnote].” The foot note Mr. Green provided reads, “Bodily signifies truly, really, in opposition to typically, figuratively. There was a symbol of the Divine presence in the Hebrew tabernacle, and in the Jewish temple; but in the body of Christ the Deity, with all its plenitude of attributes, dwelt really and substantially, for so the word bodily means.” — Dr. A. Clarke. — Ed.” Given Mr. Green has just opted to post the commentary without his own comments, I’m not exactly sure how he thinks Calvin’s comments help him out of his dilemma. Through the incarnation God took on humanity to manifest Himself “wholly” to mankind as the balance of the commentary Mr. Green elected to post tells us, “In Christ, on the other hand, he communicates himself to us wholly. He has also manifested himself to us otherwise, but it is in figures, or by power and grace. In Christ, on the other hand, he has appeared to us essentially.”
We agree with Calvin, the incarnation results in God’s presence manifest in a human body. However this isn’t the only concept Col 2:8,9 conveys. Nor do Calvin’s comments, which seem to have been missed by the oblivious Mr. Green, go to the argument we’ve been making. The problem for Mr. Green is that Calvin doesn’t address the present tense of the text. This, of course, is what we’ve been pointing out to Mr. Green and his colleagues the text demands. The present tense used by Paul demands the incarnation is present reality post Christ Jesus’ ascension. That Calvin doesn’t deal with what we’ve been pointing out about the text doesn’t mean what we’ve been pointing out isn’t there, which was clearly missed by Docetic Dave.
Let’s look at the comments from a “few” commentators who do deal with the point we’ve been making regarding this text. Douglas Moo points out regarding the aspect of the term “bodily” which has bearing on this argument from the text,
From The New American Commentary we find,
Dr. Lenski explains,
A.T. Robinson points out,
In Vincent’s word studies we discover,
From “The Life Application Commentary” we read,
And finally from the “Bible Knowledge Commentary”
Clearly the point of the text within the context of this argument has flown right by Mr. Green who elected to post in support of his opinion a commentary that didn’t deal with the aspect of the text that has bearing to this argument. Thus, once again, demonstrating Mr. Green, as Dr. Roger Olson explains of folks who advocate views similar to his, is an “untutored” layman “unreflective” in thought. Perhaps next time Mr. Green elects to post up a commentary, he will consider one that actually deals with the argument provided. That Calvin didn’t deal with the present tense of the text is hardly surprising. It was likely, although this is just speculation on my part; he never considered anyone would argue against the permanence of the incarnation. Thus Calvin didn’t feel compelled to draw out what is manifestly obvious in the text as reported by all the above commentators.
However, given Docetic Dave appealed to Calvin, although his commentary on Col 2:8,9 was moot because it didn’t deal with my argument, I thought it might be interesting to look up his views on other texts related to this very argument. Calvin provides some interesting comments regarding the other text Mr. Green has refused to engage. Pursuant to 1 Cor. 9:1 we find Calvin explaining,
Have I not seen Jesus Christ? He expressly adds this, in order that he may not be reckoned inferior in any respect, to the other Apostles, for this one thing the malevolent and envious bawled out on all occasions — that he had received from the hands of men whatever he had of the gospel, inasmuch as he had never seen Christ. And, certainly, he had not had converse with Christ while he was in the world, but Christ had appeared to him after his resurrection. It was not a smaller privilege, however, to have seen Christ in his immortal glory, than to have seen him in the abasement of mortal flesh. He makes mention, also, afterwards of this vision, (1 Corinthians 15:8,) and mention is made of it twice in the Acts, (Acts 9:3, and Acts 22:6.) Hence this passage tends to establish his call, because, although he had not been set apart as one of the twelve, there was no less authority in the appointment which Christ published from heaven.
Notice Calvin draws the distinction between the glorified body of Christ Jesus post His ascension vs. that of His mortal body prior to the resurrection. IOW, what Calvin is conveying is just as He appeared to the other apostles in His body, so too He did with Paul, albeit glorified. However, according to Mr. Green Luke’s account contradicts Paul’s statement because according to Docetic Dave post the ascension Christ Jesus no longer had His body. And now on to 1 Corinthians 15:8, Calvin explains,
He now introduces himself along with the others, for Christ had manifested himself to him as alive, and invested with glory. As it was no deceptive vision, it was calculated to be of use for establishing a belief in the resurrection, as he also makes use of this argument in Acts 26:8.
Calvin explains the purpose of the appearance of Christ Jesus on the road to Damascus was to affirm belief in the resurrection. This affirmation came through His bodily presence as we know from the account with Thomas in John chapter 20. Christ Jesus appeared to Paul just as He had done with the other apostles, in His body.
We await Mr. Green’s engagement of the Scripture we’ve brought to bear within the context of this argument. Attempting to side step the issue by ignoring that aspect of the text which directly addresses his fallacious claim is simply more sophist spin on his part. Let us pray God grant Mr. Green and his colleagues repentance unto the knowledge of the truth.
God Bless,
Folks,
Caught between a rock and a hard place, Mr. Green seems to be kidding himself. Mr. Green writes,
Unfortunately, despite his protestations to the contrary , Mr. Green does not agree with N.T. Wright, as evidenced by his very next comments,
Once again we find Mr. Green reading into the text his point of view which he claims is an “implication”, that implication being as Mr. Green writes, “That ‘implies’ that Paul did not see a person” However, as Dr. Wright points out, “But the historical conclusion…cannot be that Paul did not see Jesus [i.e. “a person”] (which neither of them [Luke of Paul] say), or that whe he ‘saw’ Jesus only with his mind [vision] or heart (which, again, neither of them say), or that he saw Jesus simply as a ‘being of light’ (which, once more, neither of them say).
The fact is, as Mr. Green’s own words attest he is arguing the very position to which Dr. Wright objects. A position, as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, which requires Luke to contradict Paul. You would think Mr. Green would at least be honest with himself on the issue.
God Bless,
Folks,
Docetic Dave Green explains Sam’s assessment of his argument pictured below is false,
However, Mr. Green’s actions contradict his claim that the above assessment is false as can be seen here, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/29516 Let’s take a look,
Mr. Green goes from writing, “No one disagrees that Paul saw Jesus.” Which is clearly false in that what Mr. Green claims Paul ‘saw’ was a ‘vision’, not the historical Christ Jesus. To make matters worse, Mr. Green then goes on to follows-up that comment with, “I agree with N.T. Wright.”
N.T. Wright’s view, with which Mr. Green claims he aggress is that Paul encountered the historical Christ Jesus on the road to Damascus. According to N.T. Wright to suggest otherwise of the Lucan accounts logically leads to Luke contradicting Paul. Yet Mr. Green turns around and writes, “Full Preterism:… ‘implies’ that Paul did not see a person speaking.”, when referring to Paul’s encounter with Christ Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Mr. Green’s acknowledgement that his view really is that Paul did not see the historical person Christ Jesus on the road contradicts N.T. Wright’s position and in fact logically leads to Luke contradicting Paul. When Mr. Green writes, “No one disagrees that Paul saw Jesus”, he is playing word games, because the definition or meaning of the name “Jesus” is what the fight between the Christian point of view and heretics like Mr. Green has been all about from the start. Mr. Green’s clear position, after pealing back the layers of sophistry he employs, is that the historical Christ Jesus, the man no longer exists having disposed of His body. Thus if that man Christ Jesus no longer exists then Paul did not see Him.
The simple fact is Mr. Green has validated Sam’s assessment. Docetic Dave is employing sophistry to hide the fact he denies Paul encountered, as in saw and met the historical Christ Jesus.
Why can’t Docetic Dave be honest about his position? Could it be that Docetic Dave is intentionally attempting to deceive people about his position?
Folk’s
This is interesting Mr. Green writes,
And then goes on to write,
Well I suppose technically “speaking” Mr. Green is correct he didn’t “say” Paul did not see a person, he wrote, “Scripture says Paul “heard a voice.” That ‘implies’ that Paul did not see a person speaking.” Clearly indicating Paul did not see Jesus whom spoke. IOW Paul didn’t see the person. Thus the implication of Mr. Green’s argument in lieu of the fact he took exception to, “Paul saw a person speaking. Scriptural evidence for this assertion?” implies Paul heard a disembodied voice, which is the logical conclusion given Mr. Green’s position is that Christ Jesus no longer has His body.
IOW, Mr. Green’s position is really, “PAUL DID NOT SEE A PERSON speaking” but simply heard a disembodied voice. Once again denying Paul’s explicit witness that he met the historical Jesus as had the other apostles.
Again, why can’t Mr. Green be honest about his position.
Folks,
Wow, Mr. Green writes,
Perhaps Mr. Green is using a different version of the Bible, in mine Luke wrote Acts not Paul. However, this may go to what Dr. Roger Olson explains is a symptom of those who advocate views similar to Mr. Green, that is Biblical semi-literacy. Acts 26:19 is Luke’s account of what Paul said. The problem Mr. Green has is that he can’t produce anything written by Paul to corroborate Mr. Green’s “interpretation” of the Lucan account. This of course is the point of N.T. Wright’s explanation as explained here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5604 Within that post you will read a reasoned explanation offered by N.T. Wright as to Luke’s literary artistry in framing the encounter as he did. The dilemma Mr. Green has is that Paul never writes what he ‘saw’ was a “vision” of Christ Jesus. However, what Paul does write is, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Nothing about “a “vision” of Jesus our Lord”. Thus if Mr. Green’s “interpretation” of the Lucan account of Paul’s encounter is accurate Luke has contradicted Paul’s own explicit witness as to what did happen.
Not surprisingly Mr. Green goes on to complain,
Bygollygeewillikers, those two views are in fact what Mr. Green is claiming to be the case. This of course is the point, while Mr. Green claims to agree with N.T. Wright, as we demonstrated here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5604#comment-16080, Mr. Green does in fact disagree with N.T. Wright because he denies Paul ‘saw’ the person Jesus of Nazareth on the road to Damascus. Thus Mr. Green’s “interpretation” logically leads to the conclusion the Lucan account of Paul’s encounter with Jesus of Nazareth on the road to Damascus contradicts Paul’s own explicit witness as to the same event.
What you should be asking yourself, that is if you aren’t drinking Mr. Green’s kool-aide, is why can’t Mr. Green be honest about his position?
God Bless
“:Sharon, when Dave says he affirms the humanity of Jesus, he is clearly REDEFINING what “human nature” means. Dave has his definition, and the orthodox faith has thiers ”
Amen to that Sam. You hit the nail on the head. Green has a real “talent” for equivocation on these issues. Green is great at DENYING what others say about the logical conclusions of what he does say, but he backs off when it comes to clearly defining exactly what he IS saying. He may think he is being “clever” but in the end, he is twisting the Scripture in a very, very dangerous way.
Prayers for those sucked into full/hypoer preterism and Green’s methods. Personally, I thank God for those who alerted me to his ways, and those who helped nutured me away from full/hyper preterism. The view is dangerous.
Blessings,
Sharon
Green writes: “Full preterists have not “stated that Jesus doesn’t retain His humanity.”
Green also wrote, “”The author of the book of Hebrews implied that Jesus is no longer in “the days of His flesh.” Full preterists agree.”:
More proof that Green is playing word games. He needs to clarify his view and admit straight up what the heck he is trying to say. He can skirt around the issue all he wants, but when push comes to shove, he isn’t really answering questions.
Makes one wonder what he is trying to hide? Maybe his buddy Sullivan should be questioning these things.
Sharong
Green writes:, “Scripture is the one thing that Talbotism does not want to discuss as the Final Word (other than in generalities, or a carefully selected verse here, or a verb tense there). :)”
What rubbish. Opponents of full/hyper preterism have used plenty of Scriputre, but the full/hyper preterist has ignored it. Instread, they lie and spin the situation claiming no one had use Scripture. LOL What hogwash.
Sharon,
That’s exactly right; all Mr. Green has is sophist spin. They are running from the truth and hiding behind irrational fictional claims. At the end of the day, the only power that is going to over-come their blindness to the truth is God. All we can do is present what the text states, if they don’t have the witness of the Spirit to accept that truth, there isn’t much we can do. We pray God grant them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth.
God Bless,
Paul,
The problem Mr. Green has is that he can’t produce anything written by Paul to corroborate Mr. Green’s “interpretation” of the Lucan account.
That really is the crux there. I have been dealing with the arguments of a recent convert who left the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [my former denomination] for the Roman Catholic Church, and his argument was that every Protestant simply confuses what scripture says with their interpretation of what scripture says.
Now, I think that this Roman Catholic is wrong, as his position is basically the whole “death of the author” position of Jacques Derrida, but, seeing arguments like this make me wonder if some Protestants don’t give Roman Catholics reason to believe it. The simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the Greek term ουρανιος that would even begin to suggest that what Paul saw was not Christ in human flesh. After all, Acts 7:56 clearly says that the heavens opened up, and that Stephen saw the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God. Acts 1:11 also states that he was taken up into heaven. Hence, if Paul saw a similar thing to Stephen, could we not call this a “heavenly vision?”
How does Green answer that? With more parallelomania. It would be nice for Green to tell us where, in any of these alleged counterexamples he cites, the thing seen in heaven was said to have been taken up into heaven in the first chapter of the book. Jesus was very clearly taken into heaven in chapter 1. Six chapters later, the heavens are ripped open, and Stephen sees Jesus. Where in the world do you find that kind of parallel in terms of the things Ezekiel saw, the things that Peter saw, and the things John saw in the book of Revelation? Which of these books begins by saying that these things “ascended into heaven” [Acts 1:11], then proceeds to say that the heavens were ripped open, and they were seen?
Again, I have to keep coming back to these folks’ hermeneutics. Unfailingly, they get out of problems by trying to find a parallel. Of course, we could make nonsense out of their words by doing that very thing, but they are willing to do it to the Bible. That is not to say that the Bible does not ever relate to itself, and that you can never find parallels; it is simply to say that you must show that the alleged parallels are *significant* by arguing from the context of each.
God Bless,
Adam
Adam,
As usual, you hit the nail on the head. Mr. Green can’t corroborate his “interpretation” of the Lucan accounts with anything written by Paul yet insists on “interpreting” Luke in a manner that contradicts Paul’s own written testimony as to what he did see. This, “silliness” for want of a better term, it seems to me, is pure irrationalism, but I guess when “traditions” get in the way irrationality takes over.
Thank you for weighing in, your opinion is always appreciated and valued.
God Bless,
P.S. Evidently it has finally dawned on Mr. Green the unfortunate position his “interpretation” of the Lucan accounts regarding what Paul saw on the road to Damascus has resulted. In an effort to clear himself of requiring Luke to have contradicted Paul’s clear witness on the matter has responded with this, “Yesterday, I observed that Talbotism (following N.T.Wright’s lead) makes the New-Testament writer Luke out to be a liar.”
So, unless we accept Mr. Green’s dubious “interpretation” of the Lucan account which in fact requires the historian to have contradicted Paul’s direct witness on the matter, Luke must be a liar. LOL, the point of course is to interpret Luke is such a way he must contradict Paul is an unacceptable absurd result. Mr. Green is offering the irrational claim that recognizing Luke’s ability to, for effect, frame the accounts in a manner that his intended audience would best recognize the significance of the event makes Luke out to be a liar. This claim is in fact patently absurd and illustrates Mr. Green’s lack of reflection on the issue. I’m reminded of the kid, who’s been embarrassed on the playground taking his ball home. The fact is, allowing Luke the literary flexibility to cast the events in terms he believed would best draw impact to his audience is a reflective position accounting for what the full measure of Scripture has to say on the matter. Mr. Green has demonstrated one more time why frankly, he isn’t worth the bother. Mr. Green isn’t honest with his position, isn’t honest with the text, and isn’t honest with the argument.
Paul, Adam, Amen. You both have pointed out some things that are worth paying attention to.
Adam, you wrote, “It would be nice for Green to tell us where, in any of these alleged counterexamples he cites, the thing seen in heaven was said to have been taken up into heaven in the first chapter of the book. Jesus was very clearly taken into heaven in chapter 1. Six chapters later, the heavens are ripped open, and Stephen sees Jesus.”
EXCELLENT point. Green should answer this.
Sharon
Folks,
Docetic Dave Green responds,
Mr. Green’s response demonstrates my accusation that it is his “interpretation” of the Lucan accounts which contradict Paul is in fact the case. What “closes the door” on Mr. Green’s dubious “interpretation” is Paul’s explicit statements an example of which is found in 1 Cor. 9:1, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” In contrast to what Docetic Dave explains, Paul’s explicit words insert “certainty” in the manner. As Dr. N.T. Wright explains Paul’s written record is the datum to which we defer, not Mr. Green’s dubious at best so called “interpretation” of an account.
God Bless,
Guys/gals, I’m again amazed at how this one single thing (the eternal incarnation of Christ) demolishes FP, and they know it. It killed it for me, thank God. I consider myself rescued. It is the FIRST issue I will mention to an FP from now on.
Well, I guess David Green took Sharon’s advice and responded here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/29549
No one has stressed the word “ουρανιος” (heavenly) in Acts 26:19. But the word “vision” does leave the door open to the idea that Paul did not see Jesus “in the flesh.” The word “vision” itself takes away any certainty there might otherwise be in the “Jesus-in the-flesh” idea. Also, of course, Luke gives no hint whatsoever that Paul saw anything other than light.
Dave is simply overstating his case here. It is true that sometimes visions can simply be things that occur in people’s imagination. However, that is not inherent in the word οπτασια, and it is clearly not always [or even mostly] the case:
Luke 1:22 And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept making signs to them and remained mute.
Yet, very clearly, the text says that an angel appeared to Zacharias standing to the right of the altar of incense [v.11]. Hardly the language of something that was only going on in Zacharias’ head.
Luke 24:23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
Yet, again, the gospel writers record that angels actually *did* appear to them.
The point is that even the term “vision” must be understood in its context. If we are to understand the nature of Paul’s vision, then we must take all of the background assumptions that come from the text. As PaulT rightly pointed out, were Mr. Green to actually find parallels to this text, he would go to Paul’s own account of this very event, and get the necessary background information to interpret Luke properly. Luke nowhere even remotely claims to be giving an exhaustive account of everything Paul saw.
If Acts 7:55-56 were to say something along the lines of, “And Stephen saw Jesus come out from behind a cloud that had been hiding Jesus from Stephen’s sight,” you would definitely be onto something here. But those verses don’t use that kind of historical/narrative language. The language that Luke and Stephen used was apocalyptic, visionary, and accommodative: Stephen “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”
Acts 7:55-56 proves that Jesus was in heaven at the right hand of God after He had been “taken up in glory” in Acts 1. It does not prove that Jesus was “in the flesh” in heaven.
I really don’t get this argument at all. First of all, the text I was referring to is Acts 1:11:
Acts 1:11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
The point I was raising is that, if one text says Jesus entered into Heaven, and then later, the heavens are ripped open, and you see Jesus, then it calls into question whether the intent of the author is to be apocalyptic in his language. Green’s assumption is that all language like this irregardless of its context is apocalyptic. That is utter linguistic nonsense. For example, earthquakes are certainly used in apocalyptic contexts, as are statues [see Daniel 2 for example]. However, does that mean one cannot speak of an earthquake and a statue outside of this apocalyptic context?
As I said, this is parallelomania at its worst. Does this prove that Stephen saw Jesus in the flesh? No. However, it does show that Green’s interpretation of Acts 26:19 is on shaky ground, since neither term in the phrase “heavenly vision” entails that Paul did not see something that was only in his head. It existed in reality, and the two terms would make perfect sense if Jesus was taken up into heaven, and then revealed to Paul from heaven.
I should also mention that the images of the glorified Christ very clearly are accompanied by light in the NT. For example:
Matthew 17:2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.
Consider the parallel [which many scholars have noted] between this text, the transfiguration, and the image of the glorified Christ that John sees in Revelation
Revelation 1:12-16 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; 13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. 14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. 15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.
I do believe there would be quite a bit of light if you saw all of that white, fire, and shining. It seems like all of these images of the glorified Christ have, associated with them, tremendous light. Hence, I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to suggest that, if Paul saw the resurrected Christ in his full, glorified form, there would be quite a bit of light. Hence, when Luke records that Paul saw light, he is not really ruling out the possibility that where that light was coming from was the glory of the resurrected Christ.
God Bless,
Adam
Excellent, Adam. The question you have to ask yourself is why is Dave fighting so hard to get rid of the glorified post-ascension physical body of Jesus Christ in the first place and relegate the resurrection as merely a sign to one generation of people and not as a Firstfruit representation of the harvest to follow, nor as the last (not second) Adam. This makes the resurrection/ascension nothing more than the reversal of the Incarnation.
For instance Dave is pointing out what the text does not say. In like manner, there is no text in the NT that says Jesus Christ sloughed off His resurrected body and ascended to heaven. It is a doctrine that Dave must have, however, to maintain full preterist eschatology. He fully realizes the implications of having an eternally incarnate Christ, and therefore cannot have it. This is why he fights against Paul seeing the glorified post-ascension physical body of Jesus.
And, you are right, to an FP, anything that cannot be explained easily is recategorized to “apocalyptic language.” I did the same for 15 years. The Beyond Creation Science guys also like to recategorize things like this to “covenantal language.” Basically, they are both cop-outs and loopholes that allow them to believe what they want to believe; that is, reinterpret everything through the funnel of time statements no matter what you have to do to the text to squeeze it in.
What both cracks me up now (and seriously bothered me as a full preterist), is to be so adamant about taking all the time statements literally (“woodenly” as they would say), scream “consistency!” when they clearly ignore that hermeneutic at their convenience by squeezing the millennium down into 40 years (AD30-70), or worse, 3.5 (AD66-70) years. So, in order to take a time statement literally, we need to funnel this time statement (the 1000 years) into that time statement (at hand).
This is why this doctrine of the eternally incarnate Christ brings full preterism to its knees.
Folks,
I’m thinking you have to be drinking Mr. Green’s kool-aide for his irrational conclusions to make sense. Mr. Green writes,
So through “implication” and in contradiction to what Paul explicitly writes, Luke claims Jesus of Nazareth did NOT appear to Paul. Yet, Mr. Green goes on to claim,
Well if the man Jesus of Nazareth is no longer in his physical form what appeared to Paul? Mr. Green, who claims the incarnation was only temporary, denies the resurrected man Jesus of Nazareth who appeared to the other apostles also appeared to Paul. According to Paul we know, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Mr. Green has denied that text means Paul saw the resurrected embodied Jesus of Nazareth as had the other apostles. Indeed, Mr. Green claims the Lucan accounts which he seems to believe override Paul’s explicit witness on the matter are to be understood as, “apocalyptic, visionary, and accommodative” thus concluding whatever Paul did see was not an embodied Jesus of Nazareth. If you consider what the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth told the apostles in Luke 24:39, “For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have”. That is, His body denoted the difference between Him being a man vs. a spirit. It would appear Mr. Green’s options in answering the question are limited.
It sure appears as though Mr. Green is talking out of both sides of his mouth, although I doubt his colleagues will suggest that.
God Bless,
Again, Green replies:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/29550
No one has suggested that Luke gave “an exhaustive account of everything Paul saw.”
Once again………
Luke implied –implied– that Paul did not see Jesus in the physical form of a person speaking:
1. Paul saw a blinding light “round about him.”
2. Paul fell to the earth, and in all likelihood, closed his eyes at that point “for the brightness of that light.”
3. Paul then “heard a voice” (implying that he saw no one speaking –just as the men who were with him saw no one speaking).
4. After the vision ended, Paul opened his eyes, and was found to be blind “for the brightness of that light.”
Luke’s implication is that Paul saw nothing other than the blinding light.
Therefore: In seeing the blinding light from heaven “round about him,” Paul saw Jesus.
I don’t know if Green is aware or not, but this is actually something I am doing heavy study in right now, and that is the notion of implicature. What Dave is relying on here is something called Q-implicature which stands for “quantity.” One of the main principles of language is that we assume that a person is being sufficient with what they say. Therefore, Dave is assuming that:
Paul saw a light and heard a voice.
+>Paul only saw a light and heard a voice.
While this is a legitimate category of Gricean implicature [that of quantity], the problem is that Q-implicatures can be defeated by background assumptions. For example, take Matthew 1:25:
Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son
+>he kept her a virgin only until she gave birth to a son.
Again, this is a legitimate implicature given the Q principle. However, note this passage from the book of 2 Samuel:
2 Samuel 6:23 Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
~+>Michal the daughter of Saul had no child only until the day of her death.
The reason that it does not follow that Michal started having children after she died is because of our background assumptions that people don’t start having children when they die.
Here is another example from common modern day English in which implicature can be defeated by background assumptions. This deals with another common implicature, namely, the notion that a speaker will be brief, and not give superfluous information [Gricean M-Principle, Hornian R-principle, and Levinsonian I-Principle]:
John and Jill bought a car on Tuesday.
+>John and Jill bought a car together, not each one separately.
However, what would happen if we had the following sentence:
The Americans and the Russians tested the atomic bomb in 1972.
~+>The Americans and the Russians tested the atomic bomb together, not each one separately.
The reason why this implicature does not follow is because of our background knowledge that the Americans and the Russians were enemies at this time.
Hence, we can now say that whether Luke was making the following implicature
Paul saw a light and heard a voice.
+>Paul only saw a light and heard a voice.
depends upon our background assumptions. That is why I stated that Luke is nowhere claiming to be exhaustive in his account of Paul’s conversion on the Damascus road. He recognizes that he is writing alongside men like Paul. He assumes that you will not take his writings in isolation, but will consider them as part of the larger community of which he is a part. Hence, because of background assumptions:
Paul saw a light and heard a voice.
~+>Paul only saw a light and heard a voice.
No one has suggested that Paul saw Jesus in his “imagination” or “in his head” in Acts 26:19.
Evidently, Adam is not reading my posts here at PretCosmos, but is reading only snippets of my posts that are accompanied by Talbotian . . . . “commentary.” :^)
Hence Adam has no idea what I’m actually saying. It is a pity, because he sounds like an intelligent guy.
1. I am not a “Talbotian.” Dr. Talbot and I would disagree on issues such as exclusive psalmody and the family integrated church controversy. In fact, my views of language could be described much more as a combination of Chomskyian, Gricean, and Speech act theory, largely through the influence of Dr. Willem VanGemeren, my professor at Trinity. Finally, my goal in these discussion is truth, and not to believe what ever Dr. Talbot says. I am sure even he would agree that this should be our goal.
2. In the previous post, Green wrote the following:
No one has stressed the word “ουρανιος” (heavenly) in Acts 26:19. But the word “vision” does leave the door open to the idea that Paul did not see Jesus “in the flesh.” The word “vision” itself takes away any certainty there might otherwise be in the “Jesus-in the-flesh” idea. Also, of course, Luke gives no hint whatsoever that Paul saw anything other than light.
I am at a loss to figure out exactly how the word “vision” would ever communicate that this was not an actual seeing of Jesus in the flesh, unless one were to relegate this vision to the realm of something like what Jacob saw in his dream. However, Green now denies that this is what he means. The only thing I can think is that he is arguing that the term “vision” entails that what is seen is not material. However, again, such would require lexical proof, and none is offered. There is no doubt that the term conveys with it a kind of supernatural connotation, that is, an unveiling of something supernatural which is usually hidden from common man, but nowhere have I ever been able to find any lexicon which states that the term cannot denote sight of something that is material in character. That is something that I would say has to be proven.
God Bless,
Adam
Green writes: “The fact that Dr. Talbot’s disciples have NOT recanted of calling Luke a liar speaks volumes”
Sharon responds: No one here is accusing Luke of being a liar.
Sharon
Adam, all,
It appears that Dave has lost that sense of “harmonizing” of Scripture when faced with doublets or triplets of the same account. Jesus “appeared” to Paul as he did with the other apostles (I Cor 15.1-11); Paul “saw” the Lord Jesus (I Cor 9); there was “vision”, “light”, “voice” etc. Put ALL of this together, assuming that no contradiction exists in Scripture (based on the dogma of inspiration), then how can one like Green deny the obvious implication: because he KNOWS that if Jesus currently retains the incarnate body “in heaven”, then the “absent” passages (”I am going away….away from the Lord….whom heaven must receive….in heaven…etc) are problematic for stating that Jesus “bodily” came again in AD 70; and that there is on this basis for assuming that 70 AD was a typical “Day of the LORD” (of which Jesus has the attribute and title of “the one who rides on the clouds” of historical judgment) coupled with the idea that there will be a final, last day, BODILY appearance of the Lord in the context of the resurrection of the dead and the finality of history.
See, in Hyper Preterism, it’s an “all or nothing” approach. You can’t piecemeal this stuff out. They ridicule that as “many comings” when, on their assumption, there is only “one final coming” in AD 70. But, the NT DOES makes distinctions between the final appearance, and the typical appearance of judgments in history (of which there are numerous examples in the OT and Psalms). And, here, as N.T. Wright has pointed out with the use of the Parousia, it can be used for the arrival of the King in abstentia, and the arrival of the King in visible presence. Josephus used the term for the “shekinah” glory of God, and it is used in the NT for the visible, bodily presence (for Timothy and for Paul). So, can there be a “parousia” in AD 70? Sure. Is there one distinguished at the end of history at the last day, the last trump when the last enemy is destroyed? Most assuredly. Context demands it. Unless, of course, as the debate on RCM is proving to show, one must radically deconstruct 1 Cor 15, then recast it in the Hyper Preterist time limitation, opting for either a “corporate body” resurrection (which is essentially Gnosticism); or have a literal “rapture” in AD 70 (Stevens, Harding, Hibbard, Russell, Terry), which is patently absurd.
Sharon,
That’s right; no one is calling Luke a liar. However, on the other hand Mr. Green’s position logically leads to the unlikely proposition Luke contradicted Paul, a position which by implication means the Holy Spirit wasn’t able to keep their stories straight. Wow, Mr. Green hit two concepts with one stone, so to say.
Anyway, charitably, I think Mr. Green’s false charge is based on a realization his un-reflective position is untenable. I think his desire is to remove the spot light from his exposed viewpoint. I think sophist 101 recommends when caught to obfuscate by creating red herrings.
P.S. I trust no one has lost sight of the fact Mr. Green dropped Calvin’s commentary on Col 2:8,9 like a hot potato, after having it pointed out Calvin’s comments didn’t deal with the text within the context of this discussion. Nor, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out, did Mr. Green deal with the present tense in the text. I’d say this is just another example of him not dealing with Scripture.
Sharon,
BTW, here is Mr. Green’s answer to my question,
LOL! Mr. Green must be feeling the heat. Evidently the sophist read “what” and thought “who”. Hopefully Mr. Green will answer the question asked which is, “what appeared to Paul?” Based on this comment in follow-up to Adam, “Spirit instead of flesh.” it seems as though Docetic Dave is beating around the bush that “what” appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus is the “Spirit” of Christ Jesus. Which isn’t consistent with Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2:9 which states, “the man Christ Jesus”. Perhaps I misunderstood what Mr. Green is getting at.
God Bless,
Sharon,
LOL! Clearly the sophist Mr. Green is scrambling. Mr. Green writes,
Ironic isn’t it, Mr. Green employs the term, “in reality”. Mr. Green is denying Paul saw the resurrected historical Jesus of Nazareth in reality, however due to the term “vision” Mr. Green is reading into the account that Paul “saw a vision OF Christ Jesus” two entirely different concepts. Luke nowhere claims Paul did not see Jesus of Nazareth. As even Mr. Green has conceded what he believes to be the case is only “implied”, wink, wink, in the text. Therefore, Mr. Green’s charge suggesting in order for Paul to have seen the historical Jesus of Nazareth on the road to Damascus Luke must have lied is bogus.
The dilemma for Mr. Green is that he cannot corroborate “his” that is Mr. Green’s dubious interpretation of the Lucan account. In addition to that as previously explained Paul claims Christ Jesus is a man, (1 Tim 2:5) and that He has His body, (Col 2:8,9) Given Mr. Green has subsequently admitted the Lucan account, “leaves open the door” for his dubious interpretation, then it is hardly unequivocal that Luke is conveying the idea Paul did not see the resurrected historical Jesus of Nazareth as he, that is Paul’s explicit testimony on the matter states. The dilemma Mr. Green has is that nowhere does Paul speak of resurrected Jesus of Nazareth whom he says he saw as had the other apostle’s as a “spirit”. Indeed Paul claims He is a man, with a body. This is the dilemma Mr. Green’s dubious “interpretation” of the Lucan accounts face, Mr. Green cannot corroborate his “interpretation” from Paul’s own corpus.
What all this tells us is that for Mr. Green’s “interpretation” to be true, Luke would have had to contradict Paul’s own statements on the matter, which at the end of the day is what Mr. Green’s false charge seems to be all about. Distracting ones eye away from the fact, based on Mr. Green’s dubious “interpretation”, Luke contradicted Paul which in turn calls into question the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in keeping the story straight.
God Bless,
Wow, I just popped over to PretCosmos. Did people really write these things?:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/29553
Yeah The Talbots lie about what you say, and Adam is interacting with the lies as if they are truth.
If they keep this up then it won’t matter what they write or do in the future, not even their own will trust them because they have told so many lies.
They lack the ability to deal with the truth, so they fabricate lies.
Why doesn’t The Supreme Exalted Poobah Talbot teach his pupils about truth?� Obviously he is either feeding them the lies or is complicit in them.
WTS -� without truth seminary
Dr. Edward J. Hassertt, Jr.
Wow, first of all, I am not “interacting with their lies.” I have interacted with hyperpreterists before this. I am simply interpreting what I am seeing in the light of what hyperpreterists have written. I came to much the same conclusion that PaulT did when Dave Green said that he wasn’t talking about Paul simply seeing visions in his head. My first thought was, “Okay, what did he see then!” As PaulT said, it would completely contradict the mediatorial role of Christ to say that he is only a spirit. So, then, what did Paul see? I don’t know the answer to that, if you accept David Green’s interpretation.
Furthermore, if someone is going to cite an ethical breach on the part of PaulT, Sam, and Sharon, one should at least prove it. Otherwise it makes it sound like you are simply taking a cheap shot. I am not saying these folks are infallible; certainly, they are fallible. Still, ethical complaints require proof.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/29552
Yeah, when they publish their own Talbotian-Frostonian translation of the New Testament someday maybe then we’ll know which verses teach an A.D.70 coming and which ones teach a “final coming” because they can just ADD the word “final” to some coming verses and then we’ll know!!….(emphasis on the word “add”). Then in the margins they can tell us that logic demands a final coming because, as Sam put it, “I’m a Calvinist”. And in the introduction to his translation Sam can say “I would like to thank Roderick Edwards for beating me to the “Mother Church” argument against Preterism by three years and also the “historic Christianity” punchline as well - his awesome exegesis has truly been inspirational in my own journey home to Partial Preterism. Thank you brother Roderick!!”
This is simply like saying that every time we see the word “God” in the Bible, we must insert the word “triune” before it. Or since Christ’s sacrifice was the final sacrifice [Hebrews 10], every time Christ’s sacrifice appears we should insert the word “final” before it. This view of language is, as Sam said, a very “all or nothing approach.” The problem is that language doesn’t work this way. As my professor, Dr. Osborne used to say, the average person has a vocabulary of only about twenty thousand words; however, each person will produce about four to five million different ideas in their lifetime . Simple math demands that words be flexible in their meaning. Yet, these hyperpreterists want to make words like “coming” into monoliths, when language simply doesn’t function in this way.
Hence, just like anything else, when a word is used, you have to examine *all* aspects of language, semantics, implicature, explicature, discourse structure, syntax, context, etc. Language is simply more complicated than demanding that every word always mean the same thing in every context.
Wow, the tone of these posts are amazing. It is not that I have never seen people express ethical concerns; it is just that, normally, when you express ethical concerns, you go on to prove them, and don’t engage in cheap shots.
As far as the issue with what Paul saw on the Damascus road, this is getting to the point where the inerrancy of scripture is on the line. However, it doesn’t need to be. As I said, if we accept the fact that Paul and Luke are writing in a community of believers, there is no problem, since that background will defeat the implicature that Green is proposing. Still, we have seen how hyperpreterism effects Christology. Could it effect the doctrine of scripture too?
God Bless,
Adam
Paul, you wrote, “Ironic isn’t it, Mr. Green employs the term, “in reality”. Mr. Green is denying Paul saw the resurrected historical Jesus of Nazareth in reality, however due to the term “vision” Mr. Green is reading into the account that Paul “saw a vision OF Christ Jesus” two entirely different concepts.”
And this is the problem. Green seems to be saying that Paul only saw a SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION of Jesus Christ - not Jesus Christ in his eternal, transformed bodily form.
We understand that the full/hyper preterist cannot agree that Jesus Christ retains his FULL hamanity in heaven. Thus, Green is fighting tooth and nail against any Biblical proof that he is wrong.
It is simple enough to see that Paul saw Jesus Christ in his LITERAL body AFTER His resurrection.
1Co 15:8 and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he ___appeared to me also___ (The word “also” has signifiance. For more, this means that he, along with the other apostles, saw Jesus in His full, resurrected glory. If not, then Paul couldn’t claim to be an apostle!) .
1Co 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?
Act 26:8 Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead? Act 26:16 But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have ___I___ appeared___ unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and ____a witness___ both of the things wherein ___thou hast seen me___, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee;
Now, I know Green will say this appearance wasn’t literally in Jesus’ glorified, human body, but the fact is, the only reason he does so is because of his full/hyper preterist presuppostins, which concludes that Jesus Christ cannot be in His huuman body!
Sharon
Sam, great points. You wrote, “one must radically deconstruct 1 Cor 15, then recast it in the Hyper Preterist time limitation, opting for either a “corporate body” resurrection (which is essentially Gnosticism); or have a literal “rapture” in AD 70 (Stevens, Harding, Hibbard, Russell, Terry), which is patently absurd.”
Amen to that! I bleieve 1 Cor 15 is a real stumbling block for the full/hyper preterist. As a full/hyper preterist, I never went with the literal rapture view, but then again, the corporate view was lacking also. it is a very forced view of 1 Cor 15, one which never sat well with me. I get the concept, but taking contect into consideration, it doesn’t play out very well.
Sharon
Adam, you wrote, “I am at a loss to figure out exactly how the word “vision” would ever communicate that this was not an actual seeing of Jesus in the flesh, unless one were to relegate this vision to the realm of something like what Jacob saw in his dream. However, Green now denies that this is what he means. The only thing I can think is that he is arguing that the term “vision” entails that what is seen is not material. However, again, such would require lexical proof, and none is offered. There is no doubt that the term conveys with it a kind of supernatural connotation, that is, an unveiling of something supernatural which is usually hidden from common man, but nowhere have I ever been able to find any lexicon which states that the term cannot denote sight of something that is material in character. That is something that I would say has to be proven.”
Great comments Adam. The thing is, Green is trying to say that Paul didn’t truely see Jesus Christ in His glorified human, bodily form (which I’m sure you know). Bottom line, Green is between a rock and a hard place since he cannot admit, as others have pointed out, that if he did his whole house would cave.
Again, great comments. I like your contributions to this dialogue. :o)
Sharon
Through the Apostles, we saw Jesus after His resurrection, and at His ascension. And we continually hear claims of what we shall be like, yet, this one Scripture contradicts them all.
<>
New American Standard Bible
Children of God Love One Another
2Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 3And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
If Steven saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, doesn’t that mean he also saw God?
Ed
This is a classic hyper preterist “prooftext” which I was fond of using. 2Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 3And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.” What the Hyper Preterist wants to “get” from this is that, A: if they saw Jesus post resurrection, then they “knew” what they would “be like.” Ergo, since they saw Jesus post resurrection and knew what he was like, then they “knew” what they would be like, which is, supposedly, contradicted by the fact that it has “not yet appeared what we shall be like.”
However, in Greek, we have to consider “subjective” aspect and “objective” aspect. It has not yet appeared what we will be, taken from an objective aspect, may lend the idea to the Hyper Preterist. However, from a subjective aspect (which most take it as), the FACT that it has not yet appeared mean that it has not yet happened to us what we know we shall be, because we have seen him as he is.
Let me put this in English. “Christmas has not yet appeared, but when it will appear, we shall enjoy it as it is.” Now, we know what Christmas is, but we are in February. Christmas has not yet happened this year. It has not appeared. In other words, “this one Scripture contradicts them all” is patently false.
Sam,
I agree. I thank Ed for his comment, but this hardly over-rides Paul’s direct witness of the embodied Christ Jesus. The context isn’t discussing the corporeal nature of the resurrected Christ Jesus, God incarnate. I think the context the passage is found within is talking about believers plagued by the sin “nature”, for want of a better term, don’t know what it will be like to be sin free.
The passage goes on to explain, “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother”
When he appears and believers are resurrected with glorified bodies, the issue of sin in a believers life won’t be there. No one other than Christ Jesus truly knows what this is like.
I was actually looking at the following from
Albert Barnes:
And it doth not yet appear what we shall be - It is not fully revealed what we shall be hereafter; what will be the full result of being regarded as the children of God. There are, indeed, certain things which may be inferred as following from this. There is enough to animate us with hope, and to sustain us in the trials of life. There is one thing which is clear, that we shall be like the Son of God; but what is fully involved in this is not made known. Perhaps,
(1) it could not be so revealed that we could understand it, for that state may be so unlike the present that no words would fully convey the conception to our minds. Perhaps,…
Adam Clarke:
And it doth not yet appear what we shall be - Ουπω εφανερωθη· It is not yet manifest; though we know that we are the children of God, we do not know that state of glorious excellence to which, as such, we shall be raised.
When he shall appear - Εαν φανερωθη· When he shall be manifested; i.e., when he comes the second time, and shall be manifested in his glorified human nature to judge the world.
We shall be like him - For our vile bodies shall be made like unto his glorious body; we shall see him as he is, in all the glory and majesty both of the Divine and human nature. See Philippians 3:21; and John 17:24 : Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory. John had seen his glory on the mount when he was transfigured; and this we find was ineffably grand; but even this must have been partially obscured, in order to enable the disciples to bear the sight, for they were not then like him. But when they shall be like him, they shall see him as he is - in all the splendor of his infinite majesty.
I don’t know everything, and since I come from dispensensationalism I am questioning everything. Truly, I can’t see where partial preterism ends and full starts, except for the name-calling.
Ed,
Thank you for following up with the commentaries, I think Adam Clark’s expression is getting at what I was pointing out, “we do not know that state of glorious excellence to which, as such, we shall be raised.”
The believer having never been in a state where sin was not an issue with which to deal does not know what it will be like to be raised to that glorious state wherein they will have no desire to follow after their own heart. Stephen Smalley put it this way in him commentary on 1,2, 3 John, “The relationship that is represented in Johannine though as an intimate “likeness” between Christ and the Christian (cf. 2:6; als John 15:20-21) can operate on earth. Even now the true disciple can live in the light and as a child of God with all that entails (1:-5:13). But our spiritual derivation, although genuine, is not yet fully apparent (Rom 8:17, 19; Col 3:3-4; cf. 2 Stott, 118).” (World Biblical Commentary, 1, 2, 3 John, Stephen Smalley, Thomas Nelson, pg. 139) It seems to me Barnes is saying much the same.
The text here isn’t a commentary on the corporeal nature of God incarnate, Christ Jesus the God Man. The issue here is that believers have not yet been delivered into a state of sinless perfection wherein they won’t desire anything than to follow after the Spirit. This won’t happen until as Paul explains believes are raised with spiritual bodies, (1 Cor. 15:44) wholly given over to following God.
As far as your question as to where orthodox preterism ends, and hyperpreterism begins, that would seem to be to be marked by the propositional truth claims of Scripture. If one avows what Scripture clearly teaches which is, “we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for…, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved….” Romans 8:23,24, then you fall within orthodoxy. I mean, If you have the witness of the Spirit and therefore await the redemption of your vile body to be transformed to be like Christ’s glorious body,(Phil 3:21), then you are definitely hoping for the same thing Paul did. However, if you deny this fundamental truth claim of Scripture then you are likely on the side of the opponents, holding to a view that has been around since at least the second century if not before. BTW, if you do hold a view similar to the opponents of Christianity, it wouldn’t be all that surprising. Dispensationalism has a bit of Gnosticism inherent within it.
God Bless,
I know it’s a spiritual body, and I know this one stinks, and I know it will be redeemed like unto Christ’s Glorified body. What I don’t know, is what that will be like, other than Paul being blinded by the sight of Him, and John’s attempt at a description in the Revelation. It seems to me, that it won’t be like His resurrected body as it had not yet been glorified.
What say you?
Here are a couple of questions.
Angels are “ministering spirits”. So what kind of body do they have when we see them at the tomb? Or “for thereby
some have entertained angels unawares”
“To die is to be present with the Lord.” Will we not see Him “as He is”?
When I say pp and fp starts and ends, I am referring to the timing of events. For instance, Adam Clarke stated in his commentary that if the date of the Revelation was before the fall of Jerusalem then it was the fall of Jerusalem that was intended. Do you hold to that?
Thanks,
Ed
Ed,
Thank you for your follow-up. I’m not sure I would characterize the human body as “stinking”. After all God made that body and deemed it good. I’m not sure why you would think His that is Christ Jesus’ body isn’t as it was when resurrected. Paul, 1 Cor. 15 explains His body was the first to have a change in characteristics from mortal to immortal. If the risen Jesus of Nazareth doesn’t have the same body He was born with, how do you know it is the same Jesus of Nazareth? Besides that body raised immortal wouldn’t be immortal if it got shed at some point, would it?
Can’t say what senses the believer has outside the body. When we die we certainly aren’t resurrected as Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, (2 Cor. 5:8) all the while hoping, when he died, to attain resurrection from the dead,(Phil 3:10,11)
Not sure I understand your question about angels. As I understand it angels can appear as men, but that doesn’t mean they have a human body, which is why they are called angels. Christ Jesus in Luke 24 tells us the difference between an angel/spirit and a man is the human body. You thinking God’s plan to redeem fallen humanity is to turn them into angels?
Regarding when Revelation was written, I don’t see how one views that is a demarcation between orthodoxy and not. Personally, I’d say Clarke has a point, but then Revelation is a highly symbolic book, which can be viewed from a variety of different viewpoints that all fall within the confines of the propositional truth claims of Scripture. Orthodoxy doesn’t begin and end at the book of Revelation. What defines orthodoxy is belief in the core tenets of the faith once and for all delivered as defined by all 66 books.
Dave wrote, “When someone dies, the body and soul are “separated,” but the body and soul are not “divided.” It only “appears” they are divided when they are separated.”
Yes, I will confess, it is difficult to grasp this “basic” paradox.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/29613
Sharon: It isn’t a paradox. Once a human, always a human. IOW, the body can be TEMPORILY separated from the everlasting part of man, but that doesn’t mean they can be separated FOREVER - which the full/hyper preterist affirms. Once a man, always a man. Jesus wasn’t separated from His body FOREVER. He actually arose from the grave in His real, God ordained human body. The only exception between Jesus Christ and the believer, as it was written and came to pass, is that Jesus’ body wouldn’t see corruption. OTOH, the majority of believer’s bodies WILL see corruption, except those who are alive (bodily) at his return. Those who are alive will be changed and those who have “fallen asleep in Christ” will be raised – in their bodies.
It really IS that simple Dave. Unfortunately, the full/hyper preterist makes it much more difficult – and confusing.
Sharon
Green writes, “* God is not bound by time and space,
but He is unable to create or comprehend
an ever-increasing kingdom.”
No one ever, anywhere (anywhere, ANYWHERE) has ever proposed that God cannot COMPREHEND anything. This is a blatant and malicious lie continuously propagated by Mr. Green. He has been corrected on this point numerious times, but continues (in violation of the ninth commandmant) to perpetuate this lie. When will he stand up and be the leader he imagines himself to be and repent of such lies?
Sharon
Adam,
As a side note Dr. T employs standard hymnal’s in his services, thus he doesn’t employ exclusively Psalmody, although those services are designated as family worship.
God Bless,
Paul,
I thought the RPCNA was exclusive psalmody. Well, as I always say when something like that is pointed out, “So much for my infallibility.”
God Bless,
Adam
Adam,
No worries, I think they leave up to each individual congregation to decide.
God Bless,