What do you believe happened to Christ's body when he ascended to heaven? Did his ascension to heaven include both his material body and spirit (Logos)?
Artful,
Jesus has the legal right to His human body by the Fathers express commandment. And it would appear to be possible because Jesus also said regarding our future life in Christ:
Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
So once we get the immortality that our Lord gained for us the rules change. But I do not want to say that this is absolute proof. When our Lord chose Paul to be His 12 th apostle Jesus did not use His human body. To do so would surely be construed as the second coming and this was not the intention of this visit. So our Lord appeared in His non-human form. Since He can use whichever form is appropriate there is no absolute proof that this human body is with God now, but as we see from the texts it could be. We know that it will be used again when He returns here to rule.
Artful said: Also, a minor point regarding your antichrist teaching. I have read the scriptures where John writes of those who are considered "antichrist" and he seems to be addressing two issues):
1. Those who deny that Jesus was the Christ,
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist; he denies the Father and the Son.
Well they would be because the Father authorized such use. I did provide the text on this if you recall. And this is the Fathers will and purpose for mankind, the way this kingdom will function here on earth. This is what they really deny. So sure they are on the outs with the Father also and His plan of salvation.
Artful said: 1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
2. Those who acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ but deny that he came to the Earth in flesh.
Malik responds: I noticed that you have a tendency to do things like this. This is simply a translation difference of no consequence. First lets look at this same thought in proper context in another translation possibly the same one you are using. To do this we must also include the second verse along with the third.
NIVUS 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
Same thing just a different rendering which make no difference. We are still talking about Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, this is still the context which even the apostles denied for a time. The difficulty in grasping this reality by trained disciples is therefore no small thing. Nowhere do we get the idea that this was a problem prior to His death? Can you supply proof? Are not the many expressions Son of Man enough to refute your assumption? Everyone, not just the disciples but everyone else knew Jesus was a man of flesh prior His execution. After all, our Lord acknowledged this as fact and revealed such thinking when He said: Can you prove otherwise?
Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Artful said:
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
The first teaching is obviously "antichrist" but the second although more subtle is still considered antichrist. Some (like the Gnostics and Docetists) during John's time taught that the material world was all "corrupt" and therefore Christ did not come in the flesh but only "appeared" to be human, like a phantom. It appears that John was referring to these ones in his "antichrist" statements in 1st and 2nd John, not to the teaching that Christ had not "risen in the flesh".
There is nothing more subtle here anywhere. Using sources outside of scripture does not constitute proof. How do you know John was aware of them or if they actually existed in his day or lived in his territory? All this must be proven first if you insist on using them. John was personally involved in this very teaching and witnessed it all, even writing about Thomas and his doubts and how our Lord went to great length to correct him. Such doubts did not go away just because a few came to their senses in Jerusalem.
Artful said: However, since the WTS does teach that Christ came in the flesh, by "strict definition" (as written by John)
??? Please, what definition? Where? That the Word became flesh in not in dispute by John, so the Watchtowers agreement with it means nothing. After all John wrote about this very truth, he provided the definition and knew it well. This is not the coming in the flesh John had in mind. There was no problem with this teaching prior to our Lords death. No, not with John and not with any other disciple. This definition is:
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The problem only surfaced AFTER His death.
Artful continued to say: could they really be scriptural labeled "antichrist" for not believing that Christ was "risen in the flesh"?
Yes, of course. Because He did raise His body of flesh (come in the flesh) and they deny it. They also go to great length to explain away this truth and provide false testimony for the many appearances where the disciples were confused or did not recognize Him. I covered all this in the document Identifying the Antichrist found on my web site and since it is a very long article there is no need to repeat it here. Anyone interested can download it for themselves.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 9 January 2003 8:36:58
