Is Jesus Sitting on a Throne in His Flesh?

[SRM]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Death came by sin, so without sin there is no death. Without death there is immortality. Adam existed before sin.

I will have to disagree so I do not threadjack this thread..LOL..

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Steppingstone, do you believe Jesus is in the position now as Adam would have been had Adam not fallen?

No, two totally different individuals..

[mental]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think most make that response when they first read this issue. But I honestly think it is mistaken. I have long researched Paul's words on this since I am partial preterist and have been shown the prospect of full preterism which denies a physical resurrection. I think we often make the mistake of thinking natural means physical, and so when we see natural contrasted with spiritual we think it is physical versus non-physical. However, Paul uses the same terms in 1 Cor 2 in comparing natural believers with spiritual believers. That is not a contrast of composite material. It is a contrast with what motivates a person. And in Chapter 10 the same idea of spiritual is used again in speaking of drink and meat which were very physical although also spiritual.

So, the idea is a physical body of either natural empowerment or spiritual empowerment.

The IKOS or INOS suffixes determine the issue. In these cases, IKOS is the suffix used. According to Greek scholars IKOS is used to describe what DRIVES a thing rather than what a thing is made of. For example, a wind machine that was quite physical was said to be a PNEUMATIKOS, since it was DRIVEN by wind. It did not mean it was made of wind, but driven by it.

Barnes said of 1 Cor 2:14:

Now the “natural man” is there opposed to the spiritual man, the ψυχικὸς psuchikos to the πνευματικὸς pneumatikos, and if the latter be explained of “him who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” - who is regenerate - the former must be explained of him who is not enlightened by that Spirit, who is still in a state of nature; and will thus embrace a class far more numerous than the merely sensual part of mankind.

Bodies are containers. And they contain, in our cases, soul and spirit. But the SPIRITUAL BODY is not something like spirit that contains spirit. It is rather a spiritually and supernaturally driven physical body that contains spirit and soul.

I think you are reading too much into ikos vs inos. It is true that suffixes are different depending on what the adjective means/denotes/expresses. However, the suffix has to be ikos since that is the suffix for these adjectives. There are no adjectives psuchinos or pneumatinos to contrast and compare to. What is your source for this reading of 1 Cor 15 based on the suffixes ikos and inos? I would be interested to read this if it is from a legitimate source.

In Greek adjectives can act either adjectively or substantively. In 1 Cor. 2 these adjectives are acting adjectively and I think from the context your view of this passage is correct. In 1 Cor.15:46 they are acting substantively since there is no noun and they are preceded by the article. I think the context also shows that Paul is talking about a thing rather than an empowering force.

BDAG would agree with me on the adjective and substantive usage as the following entry for psuchikos shows.

--------------------------------
ψυχικός, ή, όν (ψυχή; in var. mngs. Diocles, Aristot. et al.; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 1 [opp. σωματικος]; SIG 656, 20 [166 B.C.]; 4 Macc 1:32; Philo; Jos., Bell. 1, 430; Just., D. 30, 1; Tat.; Ath. 23, 2 [Thales]) ‘of the soul/life’, in our lit. pert. to the life of the natural world and whatever belongs to it, in contrast to the realm of experience whose central characteristic is πνεῦμα, natural, unspiritual, worldly (cp. PGM 4, 524f and 510=Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 175f lines 28 and 20, where the ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχικὴ δύναμις is contrasted w. the ἱερὸν πνεῦμα. On this s. πνευματικός 2aγ; also β and PGM 4, 725; Herm. Wr. 9, 9; Iambl., Myst. 6, 6 P.: the ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχή in contrast to the gods and to γνῶσις; Orig., C. Cels. 4, 57, 14).

ⓐ adj. ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (Hippol., Ref. 5, 27, 3) an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God 1 Cor 2:14. σῶμα ψυχ. a physical body 15:44ab. The wisdom that does not come fr. above is called ἐπίγειος, ψυχική (unspiritual), δαιμονιώδης Js 3:15.

ⓑ subst.

α. τὸ ψυχικόν the physical in contrast to τὸ πνευματικόν (cp. Iren. 1, 5, 1 [Harv. I 42, 1]) 1 Cor 15:46.

β. Jd 19 calls the teachers of error ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες worldly (lit. ‘psychic’) people, who do not have the Spirit, thereby taking over the terminology of gnostic (on ‘psychic’ and ‘pneumatic’ people in gnostic thinking s. AHilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums 1884, index) opponents, but applying to gnostics the epithets that they used of orthodox Christians.—DELG s.v. ψυχή. M-M. TW. Sv.
--------------------------------

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

The Body of Christ today is the Doctrines and body of the Church. That is how we eat of His flesh and drink His blood. We accept the doctrines and become the Body.

There is only one Body, the Church.

If someone believes that there is a seperate body than the church, floating around in heaven somewhere, that is heresy.

Teklemarian was kicked out of the upci for divine flesh, yet we see dispensationalists still preaching divine flesh up in heaven.

Again, the ONLY body of Christ is the Church and the doctrines associated with those doctrines.

nonesense! How is He coming back riding on a white horse with his saints (the church) if they are one and the same?

Plus, how can He be our mediator if His body is the church?

How did Thomas see his nail scarred hands IF He didn't have a body?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

God is Spirit. Angels are spirits. God says "All heaven is my throne"..so it seems heaven is not a physical world. His throne is his dwelling place. Throne does not have to mean a literal chair but is symbolic of a kings rule

God, an omnipresent Spirit, is not literally taking weight off his tired feet by sitting on a literal throne.

Is Jesus "in his humanity" sitting on His throne? Yes! In other words Jesus has power NOW. Jesus is King. He rules. That does not mean there has to be a literal chair in heaven and Jesus is resting his tired feet sitting on it. It means that Jesus is reigning right now.

I believe He is sitting on a literal throne. Because He is tired? Or because He has the authority?

His literal throne was described. He rested on the 7th day, so perhaps He can get tired, although I tend to think He doesn't, but that is just an opinion.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I don't recall anyone taking the stand that the dead in Christ have already been raised.

I would love to see scripture to back that up!

[Esther]

Originally Posted by jfrog

...shall is now past tense?
...the dead in Christ have already risen?

You are going to have to do a much better job of explaining these things than simply stating, its all past tense. It's not past tense and shall proves it. It's not past tense and the fact that the dead in Christ have not yet risen also proves it.

[mental]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bodies are containers. And they contain, in our cases, soul and spirit. But the SPIRITUAL BODY is not something like spirit that contains spirit. It is rather a spiritually and supernaturally driven physical body that contains spirit and soul.

Interestingly, though he doesn’t base it on the suffix, Thiselton and others (Fee and Barrett) would agree with you. That doesn't mean it is right though. I would be interested in what N.T. Wright and Harris have to say on this passage. I need to study this a bit more. Here is what Thiselton has to say.

(c) The allusion to 1 Cor 3:1 provides an admirable starting point for confirmation of the third understanding which we have been urging. We translated the contrast between πνευματικός and σάρκινος … σαρκικός in 3:1, 3 as “people of the Spirit … people moved by entirely human drives … unspiritual.… ” Thus Barrett understands v. 44 to refer to “the new body animated by the Spirit of God.” Bruce hints at the dimension of Christology and character by alluding here to the life-giving Spirit of v. 45. The natural body deserves its character from the Adam of creation; the body which is raised derives its character from the last Adam, Christ, who is both Lord of the Spirit and himself raised by God through the Spirit (Rom 8:11). Wolff declares, “The spiritual body of the resurrection (der pneumatische Auferstehungsleib) is through and through a body under the control of the divine Spirit, according to v. 45 a creation of Christ (cf. also vv. 21–22) who is ‘the life-giving Spirit.’ ”

Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (1278). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mental

I think you are reading too much into ikos vs inos. It is true that suffixes are different depending on what the adjective means/denotes/expresses. However, the suffix has to be ikos since that is the suffix for these adjectives. There are no adjectives psuchinos or pneumatinos to contrast and compare to.

What is your source for this reading of 1 Cor 15 based on the suffixes ikos and inos? I would be interested to read this if it is from a legitimate source.

In Greek adjectives can act either adjectively or substantively. In 1 Cor. 2 these adjectives are acting adjectively and I think from the context your view of this passage is correct. In 1 Cor.15:46 they are acting substantively since there is no noun and they are preceded by the article. I think the context also shows that Paul is talking about a thing rather than an empowering force.

BDAG would agree with me on the adjective and substantive usage as the following entry for psuchikos shows.

--------------------------------
ψυχικός, ή, όν (ψυχή; in var. mngs. Diocles, Aristot. et al.; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 1 [opp. σωματικος]; SIG 656, 20 [166 B.C.]; 4 Macc 1:32; Philo; Jos., Bell. 1, 430; Just., D. 30, 1; Tat.; Ath. 23, 2 [Thales]) ‘of the soul/life’, in our lit. pert. to the life of the natural world and whatever belongs to it, in contrast to the realm of experience whose central characteristic is πνεῦμα, natural, unspiritual, worldly (cp. PGM 4, 524f and 510=Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 175f lines 28 and 20, where the ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχικὴ δύναμις is contrasted w. the ἱερὸν πνεῦμα. On this s. πνευματικός 2aγ; also β and PGM 4, 725; Herm. Wr. 9, 9; Iambl., Myst. 6, 6 P.: the ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχή in contrast to the gods and to γνῶσις; Orig., C. Cels. 4, 57, 14).

ⓐ adj. ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (Hippol., Ref. 5, 27, 3) an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God 1 Cor 2:14. σῶμα ψυχ. a physical body 15:44ab. The wisdom that does not come fr. above is called ἐπίγειος, ψυχική (unspiritual), δαιμονιώδης Js 3:15.

ⓑ subst.

α. τὸ ψυχικόν the physical in contrast to τὸ πνευματικόν (cp. Iren. 1, 5, 1 [Harv. I 42, 1]) 1 Cor 15:46.

β. Jd 19 calls the teachers of error ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες worldly (lit. ‘psychic’) people, who do not have the Spirit, thereby taking over the terminology of gnostic (on ‘psychic’ and ‘pneumatic’ people in gnostic thinking s. AHilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums 1884, index) opponents, but applying to gnostics the epithets that they used of orthodox Christians.—DELG s.v. ψυχή. M-M. TW. Sv.
--------------------------------

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

No, two totally different individuals..

Of course they are different individuals, but Christ took the POSITION the other individual lost.