ECT The Same Yesterday, and Today, and For Ever

[Jerry Shugart]

Nope, I did not say He came down to the earth as a Man.

You stay in a state of confusion because you said the following:

He is referring to Who He is: the Son of God from Heaven come down to Earth as the Son of Man.

You say that He "came down to Earth as the Son of Man" but you turn around and deny that you ever said that He came down to earth as a Man.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously!

Since the Lord Jesus made it plain that He came down to the earth as a Man then that can only mean that He was a Man before He was born of Mary.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You stay in a state of confusion because you said the following:



You say that He "came down to Earth as the Son of Man" but you turn around and deny that you ever said that He came down to earth as a Man.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously!

Since the Lord Jesus made it plain that He came down to the earth as a Man then that can only mean that He was a Man before He was born of Mary.

Jerry, still waiting for a response to this...

Can flesh (again, in the Bible) be used to refer to man/mankind?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Can flesh (again, in the Bible) be used to refer to man/mankind?

We can know that flesh and blood is not an essential part of being a Man because the Lord Jesus is now in the heavenly kingdom as Man but yet men in their flesh and blood bodies cannot enter that kingdom.

Paul compares the different bodies which the Christian will have as "clothes" and speaks of being "clothed upon" with our house which is from heaven (2 Cor.5:2). That is why at another place he talks about the "inner man" as opposed to the "outward man."

The saints of the present dispensation will be raised up in a spiritual body at the rapture and a spiritual body is one designed for the spiritual sphere, the eternal kingdom and men in their flesh and blood bodies are not equipped to see eternal things (2 Cor.4:18).

The Lord Jesus is now in a spiritual body in the eternal kingdom and He remains "Man" even though He is described as now being invisible. He is invisible to those in a flesh and blood body but that does not mean that His body has no substance because it does, as witnessed by the vision of Him given to John at Revelation 1:13-17.

 

[Tambora]

Yes, and that is not to be taken literally unless you actually believe that the Lord Jesus was the "second man" (1 Cor.15:17).

Do you believe that He was the second man?

Yes, Jerry, I do believe that Adam was the first man made and that Jesus was the second man just as scripture says.

 

[meshak]

The Lord Jesus is now in a spiritual body in the eternal kingdom

I totally agree with this but..

and He remains "Man" even though He is described as now being invisible.

this does not make sense at all.

just saying.

 

[JudgeRightly]

We can know that flesh and blood is not an essential part of being a Man because the Lord Jesus is now in the heavenly kingdom as Man but yet men in their flesh and blood bodies cannot enter that kingdom.

Paul compares the different bodies which the Christian will have as "clothes" and speaks of being "clothed upon" with our house which is from heaven (2 Cor.5:2). That is why at another place he talks about the "inner man" as opposed to the "outward man."

The saints of the present dispensation will be raised up in a spiritual body at the rapture and a spiritual body is one designed for the spiritual sphere, the eternal kingdom and men in their flesh and blood bodies are not equipped to see eternal things (2 Cor.4:18).

The Lord Jesus is now in a spiritual body in the eternal kingdom and He remains "Man" even though He is described as now being invisible. He is invisible to those in a flesh and blood body but that does not mean that His body has no substance because it does, as witnessed by the vision of Him given to John at Revelation 1:13-17.

Jerry, do you know what a synecdoche is?

It's a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.

So now that you know that, I ask again. Can flesh be used to refer to man/mankind?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, Jerry, I do believe that Adam was the first man made and that Jesus was the second man just as scripture says.

So you do actually believe that the Lord Jesus was the second Man. Then you must believe that He was a Man before He was born of Mary because if He was the second man then He would have existed long before Mary came into existence.

If you will examine the verses which speak of these things the discourse is in regard to the different kinds of bodies which the saints will put on beginning at 1 Corinthians 15:42 and continues to verse 54. And since Paul speaks of the two different bodies he puts "first" the kind which humans are born with, natural bodies, the same body which Adam had.

So in that sense Adam was indeed the first man with a natural body but as the Lord Jesus said, He came down to the earth as the Son of Man so He was a Man before He was born of Mary.

The same today, yesterday and for ever!

If the Lord Jesus began with just one nature and then took on another when He was born of Mary then it is impossible that it could be said that He never changes and is the same today, yesterday and forever.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, do you know what a synecdoche is?

It's a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.

So now that you know that, I ask again. Can flesh be used to refer to man/mankind?

As I said, Paul refers to the body which a man on this planet wears as the "outward man." But that is nothing but our clothing because the real essence of a man is referred to by Paul as the "inward" man.

Can you tell the difference?

The Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus is now in heaven as Man so please tell me what kind of body which you think He has on now.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As I said, Paul refers to the body which a man on this planet wears as the "outward man." But that is nothing but our clothing because the real essence of a man is referred to by Paul as the "inward" man.

Can you tell the difference?

The Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus is now in heaven as Man so please tell me what kind of body which you think He has on now.

Jerry, are you incapable of answering a direct question concisely?

Can "flesh" be used as a synecdoche to refer to man/mankind?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

 

[Tambora]

So you do actually believe that the Lord Jesus was the second Man. Then you must believe that He was a Man before He was born of Mary because if He was the second man then He would have existed long before Mary came into existence.

Nope.

If you will examine the verses which speak of these things the discourse is in regard to the different kinds of bodies which the saints will put on beginning at 1 Corinthians 15:42 and continues to verse 54. And since Paul speaks of the two different bodies he puts "first" the kind which humans are born with, natural bodies, the same body which Adam had.

Yep and it plainly says that the natural was before the spiritual.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, are you incapable of answering a direct question concisely?

Can "flesh" be used as a synecdoche to refer to man/mankind?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

Yes, since Paul referred to the "outward" man. But it is obvious that the outward man is not the same as the inner man.

Now I answered your question so please answer mine. What kind of body is the Lord Jesus now wearing in heaven as Man?

 

[Tambora]

Jerry, are you incapable of answering a direct question concisely?

Can "flesh" be used as a synecdoche to refer to man/mankind?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

Yes.
And that is the sense in which is being spoken of.
Christ had to come in a body that could die.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nope.

Yep and it plainly says that the natural was before the spiritual.

He is comparing the bodies which Christians wear and will wear so of course he would begin with their first bodies, flesh and blood bodies. It would be completely irrational for Paul to begin the discourse speaking of spiritual bodies.

Christ had to come in a body that could die.

That is why He put on a flesh and blood body.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, since Paul referred to the "outward" man. But it is obvious that the outward man is not the same as the inner man.

Now I answered your question so please answer mine. What kind of body is the Lord Jesus now wearing in heaven as Man?

He is wearing a spiritual body, the resurrected form of his physical body which he had on Earth.

Jerry, is Jesus the "Word" of John 1:1?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He is wearing a spiritual body, the resurrected form of his physical body which he had on Earth.

If that is true then why would He be described as being "invisible" now?

Jerry, is Jesus the "Word" of John 1:1?

Of course He is. And in the context we read that he became flesh and not that He became man.

 

[JudgeRightly]

He is comparing the bodies which Christians wear and will wear so of course he would begin with their first bodies, flesh and blood bodies. It would be completely irrational for Paul to begin the discourse speaking of spiritual bodies.



That is why He put on a flesh and blood body.

So you agree that he put on a body, as opposed to always wearing one?

 

[JudgeRightly]

If that is true then why would He be described as being "invisible" now?



Of course He is. and in the context we read that he became flesh and not that He became man.

But Jerry, you just agreed with me that "flesh" can be used as a synecdoche of man/mankind.

Jerry, are you incapable of answering a direct question concisely?

Can "flesh" be used as a synecdoche to refer to man/mankind?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

Yes, since Paul referred to the "outward" man. But it is obvious that the outward man is not the same as the inner man.

Now I answered your question so please answer mine. What kind of body is the Lord Jesus now wearing in heaven as Man?

So could it be that in John 1:14, "the Word became flesh" could mean He became a man?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So you agree that he put on a body, as opposed to always wearing one?

Before He came to the earth He was in a body, the same body spoken of at Revelation 22:3-4. Then He put on a flesh and blood body when He was born of Mary. But even then it could be said that His body was the "outward" man as opposed to the "inner" man.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But Jerry, you just agreed with me that "flesh" can be used as a synecdoche of man/mankind.So could it be that in John 1:14, "the Word became flesh" could mean He became a man?

No, I already told you that the Lord Jesus Himself said that He came down to the earth as Man and He was in heaven as Man before He came down to the earth. That can only mean that He was Man before He was born of Mary.

He is wearing a spiritual body, the resurrected form of his physical body which he had on Earth.

If that is true then why would He be described as being "invisible" now?

 

[Tambora]

He is comparing the bodies which Christians wear and will wear so of course he would begin with their first bodies, flesh and blood bodies. It would be completely irrational for Paul to begin the discourse speaking of spiritual bodies.



That is why He put on a flesh and blood body.

The whole discourse is speaking of the distinction between the natural and spiritual of MANKIND, not angels or any other beings.
Christ did not have a natural MANKIND body before He became flesh in the womb.
He was the second direct natural creation of MANKIND, Adam was the first.
Just as scripture says.

As for the "same yesterday, today, and forever", it cannot be speaking of Christ already having a natural MANKIND body, as Christ (being eternal God) could not have died without taking on that natural MANKIND body.
So yes, Christ did take on a nature that He did not have before ---- He could now die in a flesh MANKIND body.