The Epistles

[Mellontes]

Ted-

i agree there are no tears in heaven- but you said that Rev 21:4 has already been fulfilled. perhaps i misunderstand what you are saying.

you wrote:

If referring to heaven (as many believe) wouldn't it be obvious that there are no tears in heaven for two reasons: 1) nothing to cry about, and 2) no tear ducts (these are physical characteristics)

you seem to be suggesting that we will not have physical resurrection bodies, like the Lord Jesus had. I will never, never agree with this proposition, preterism or not.

TK

TK,

Never say never. The Bible is about redemption, not future physical states. Jesus spent most of his time trying to get His disciples out of the "physical" mindset...Your physical resurrection theory is based entirely on the penalty of sin being physical death. Christ suffered spiritual death for us. Do you honestly believe Christ has a physical body in heaven?

Yes, Revelation 21:4 is fulfilled. You answered that by your "yes, now" responses to Revelation 21:3...

If Revelation 21:4 is fulfilled now for those in the new covenant then "death" is no more as well. This is spiritual death because we have been redeemed from the penalty of sin in the new covenant (in Christ). I Corinthians 15:54 is undoubtedly a resurrection verse. Do you agree? You would take this to mean a physical, bodily resurrection right? But this same verse says that when this happens, Isaiah 25:8's "death is swallowed up" is fulfilled. Revelation 21:4 says there is no more death - they are saying the same thing, yet Revelation 21:4 is fulfilled in the new covenant. That means 1 Corinthians 15:54 is fulfilled too. Yes, hard to understand if the NATURE of the resurrection is misunderstood. But there is no mistaking that if Rev 21:4 is fulfilled then so is 1 Corinthians 15:54... The complete manifestation of the new when the old was taken away happened a long time ago.

There are still some things I am working out, but the whole problem stems from our misunderstand the garden scene in Genesis. Adam died spiritually when he sinned and was separated from God. To physically demonstate what had happened, he was banished from the garden (the presence of God). Christ died a spiritual death (He took sin upon Himself and He was raised (His body was not raised - it sat limp in the tomb). To demonstrate the spiritual reality of what had happened Christ was raised back into His physical body (which would not suffer corruption). If Christ was raised directly to His heavenly throne after conquering spiritual death, all of His believers would have no way of knowing that Christ did accomplish His purpose. We have totally mixed up the visible evidence of what has happened and made future resurrections physical. When we die we go directly to the Lord. Our physical shell will decay and start supplying fertilizer for the animals and vegetables in the earth...

When one is saved they are redeemed from spiritual death right then and there! I ask you are you fully redeemed right now? Is there anything else you need to do? And since we will die physically "as it is appointed" then redemption has nothing whatsoever to with physical death. This is very important to understand. The resurrection is THE most difficult thing to understand in my opinion...

Blessings, Ted

[TK]

ted wrote:

Do you honestly believe Christ has a physical body in heaven?

absolutely, and he has the scars to prove it.

i really cannot read 1 cor 15 the way you read it.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

are you saying there is no resurrection of the dead? seems like mighty shaky ground to me.

TK

[Allyn]

TK, what kind of flesh did Jesus go to heaven with? When God allowed Jesus to appear to the men on the road, what kind of flesh did He appear in and why was it they did not recognize Him

When Jesus went through a locked door in the room, what kind of flesh did He use to do that?

When he came before Thomas and showed scars in His body. What kind of flesh was that without blood?

When in heaven - which is a spirit place, what kind of flesh will be able to exist where only spirits dwell?

If your answer is, we don't know then that is correct because we are not told. What we are told is that Jesus rose from the dead. We are told that when His followers came to the tomb, the tomb was empty. We are told that even the guards did not see Jesus come out of the grave. We are told that God allowed Jesus to be seen after His resurrection. We are told that no one recognized Him . We are told He appeared in a locked room. But we are never told what kind of body he had that went on to heaven.

Concerning us; we are told that our bodies will be changed. We are told our bodies will see coruption. But we are never told that our bodies will come out of the grave. Instead we will be like Him in that we will have the kind of body suitable for heaven. Nowhere are we told anymore than that.

So when Paul addresses the issue we see that we start out as one kind of flesh and then we die. That flesh must die before the new kind of body can emerge but as to what kind of body that will be we are not told except that it is spiritual.

Let me make this absolutely clear though. Christ rose from the grave. His body changed and the grave was empty. We are never told that this will be how it happens for us. Instead we are told that we in Christ will never die even though our bodies go to the grave.

[Mellontes]

ted wrote:

Do you honestly believe Christ has a physical body in heaven?

absolutely, and he has the scars to prove it.

i really cannot read 1 cor 15 the way you read it.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

TK,

The problem exists with your definition of death and the dead. It is spiritual death and the spiritual dead. Yes, of course, I am saying there is the resurrection of the dead, but it is not "physical" dead we are dealing with. The issue is not physical, not physical, not physical...

Are you expecting to Jesus to return in a literal, physical body? If yes, please tell me what Scriptures you use...I will not accept assertions or statements.

Blessings, Ted

[mikew]

That is mighty high enthusiasm. But I see at least two likely flaws in your understanding, which is common among Christians anyhow so how can anyone be condemned?

It always is a warning when someone is saying that they have stood on the objective word of God. The goal is right but the assumed achievement of that goal is always risky to pronounce. Many who have stood on that assumption have been wrong.

The first flaw seems to be how you throw in the mention of "kingdom of God" as if there was a clear understanding among Christians about the meaning of such phrase. I have not found any writing on the kingdom that even started with the Old Testament to show the basic meaning (or some have gone back too far -- to verses that don't purport to talk about the kingdom of God).

Try Daniel 2 then if you have never found anything.

Hmmm... You seem to misunderstand a simple statement here. The mistake in your answer is that Daniel isn't about the Old Testament but rather the Book of Daniel is part of the Old Testament.

Now it is true that Daniel 2 gives part of the definition of the kingdom. if someone wishes to explore what the definition of the kingdom of God is, then he can start with Daniel 2 but there are also many other verses that someone would need to use to clarify what the kingdom is.

So are you saying that Christians do have a consistent and clear understanding of the kingdom of God as obtained through a clear path from the Old Testament rather than starting from mere preconceptions? If you have a book in mind that explains the kingdom without assumptions and without leaps of faith, please let me know about it.

The second flaw is in the understanding of resurrection within scripture or rather we should speak of this misunderstanding of scripture. It seems that Jesus used the idea of resurrection in more than just one simple meaning. It is the confusion of meaning that causes a significant problem leading to full preterism.

Preterists understand that our resurrection indicated by Scripture is a Spiritual act in that the body of a believer does not come up out of the grave or reassemble from scattered molecules or walk around headless or armless or whatever. It is like Christ in that we are raised in Him. There is no place I know of where the Bible teaches that our physical body is raised. There is every indication that we believers are with Christ upon our death.

Ok. Just like I said about the kingdom I also say about resurrection. It doesn't matter what you think about resurrection, the topic of resurrection still may be improperly understood whether or not you have become a full preterist. And how are you able to speak for preterists like me when you contradict my understanding of resurrection?

Also, you neglect the fact that Jesus was resurrected to a physical body that they were able to touch. You also neglect the fact that we inherit the world (Rom 4:13 -- I prefer the translation by Douglas Moo in "Epistle to the Romans"). So are you imagining that we flutter as ghosts through the world in the fulfillment of Rom 4:13?

You are strongly defensive against my suggestion that there might be things that Christians don't quite properly understand. But I would have thought you could realize that Christians don't always have perfect doctrine.

My concern regarding full preterists always has been with regard to the tendency of people to jump with full blown confidence into full preterism and not having any reservations as to the completeness of this new system of thought.

Hardly a new system of thought. Since the inspired NT writers taught it as a 1st century event then I suppose they to would have been full preterists if they were around today.

methinks we are wrong in your sight and that has little relevence to me, but thanks for the comments.

Ok. It is not a new system of thought for you?
And you mean to say that preterism has been so strong in our culture that you have a perfect understanding of Eschatology now?

So why are you so fearful of the cautions I mentioned?

I truly think that if people will study the topic of Resurrection better that few people will hold to a full preterist view -- at least full preterism as you envision right now.

[Mellontes]

Also, you neglect the fact that Jesus was resurrected to a physical body that they were able to touch. You also neglect the fact that we inherit the world (Rom 4:13 -- I prefer the translation by Douglas Moo in "Epistle to the Romans"). So are you imagining that we flutter as ghosts through the world in the fulfillment of Rom 4:13?

Mike W.,

I am unfamiliar with Douglas Moo. What is his word-for-word translation?

Is not Romans 4:1-12 dealing with and contrasting the Law with faith? Does it not deal with Abraham's righteousness through faith and not Law?

Romans 4:13 - For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:14 - For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Does this verse not speak of a clear promise to those through righteousness of faith? I understand this to be faith in Christ work upon Calvary. It is through the "seed" of faith through Christ that the promises are made.

Romans 9:7-8 - Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The "flesh" does not refer to the physical body, but the Law.

Galatians 3:16 - Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

If only the dispensationalists could see the power in this verse alone. Their future Jewish kingdom is based upon the literal OT promises to Abraham. But the NT is very clear to show us who the true seed of Abraham to inherit the promises really were - it is simply those who come by faith in Christ.

Galatians 3:18 - For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Galatians 3:29 - And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is just further proof as to who the real seed is. The true seed is attached to being heirs of the promise. I am an heir to the promise because as a Gentile I was grafted in to the original tree...

Ephesians 3:6 - That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Ephesians 2:12-13 – That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Titus 3:7 - That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
James 2:5 - Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Hebrews 11:16-18 - But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called

Remember Romans 9:7? See the correlation between the heavenly city and the true seed? This is the new Jerusalem. How do you enter this city? You enter it by faith...

1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed [genealogy], but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

There are two kinds of seed, the seed by the Law (genalogies) and the seed by faith (in Christ). The former has no inheritance and the latter does.

Did you kow that every single NT reference describing the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven is an abstract noun like faith, hope, courage?

So Mike W. I hardly think that your quote of "we flutter as ghosts through the world in the fulfillment of Rom 4:13" is at all in keeping with the topic...You seem to think that the "world" refers to this physical earthly existence, but I disagree. The "world" used here is "kosmos" and simply means "orderly arrangement." Most of the times it refers to the orderly arrangement of the Mosaic Law with all its rituals, feasts and sacrifices. I strongly recommend doing a NT search on Strong's 2889 and see what you come up with...

Here are just a few of the meanings "kosmos" can have. To mistake it for the earthly realm as in planet is a grave mistake (no pun intended).

1 Corinthians 5:10 – Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world (2889), or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world (2889).

In both occurrences it deals with Judaism. In the second, it cannot mean the physical planet because the space craft had not been invented.

1 Corinthians 7:31 – And they that use this world (2889), as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world (2889) passeth away.

One must think in what sense would I “use this world.” And what exactly is the “fashion” of this world. It seems as if they could use the “fashion” of the world as long as its use was not abused. The world that passeth away was the world of Judaism (Hebrews 8:13, Heb 10:9)

Galatians 4:3 – Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world (2889):

How would people be under bondage of the elements of this world, if elements are to mean things like carbon, potassium, uranium, helium, etc.?

James 3:6 – And the tongue is a fire, a world (2889) of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Here the tongue is compared to a world of iniquity, in other words, all things associated with iniquity. This would be similar as to how bat, ball, glove and home plate would be associated with the “world” of baseball.

1 Peter 3:3 – Whose adorning (2889) let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

This “orderly arrangement” has little to do with a physical planet.

2 Peter 2:5 – And spared not the old world (2889), but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world (2889) of the ungodly;

This is very similar to James’ tongue comparison. Both the “old world” and the “world of the ungodly,” which were not spared because of judgment, refer to people not a planet.

2 Peter 3:6 – Whereby the world (2889) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Completely consistent with the explanation of 2 Peter 2:5, did the physical world really perish or was it the people who perished? Obviously it was the people else Noah and his family would have perished as well since they too were in the world. The clarity of “kosmos” is really brought forth by James’ “world” of iniquity and Peter’s “world” of the ungodly. These represent the orderly arrangement or systematic design of the topic in question. Many times throughout the New Testament “kosmos” refers to the arrangement or design of the Jewish old covenant order. It was the last days of this world that was coming to an end. It was the fashion of this world that was going to be destroyed. If the reader is willing to examine the New Testament and consider this understanding, the Scriptures, and especially the parables of Christ, will greatly open up.
Kosmos means orderly arrangement and may refer to Roman customs, Jewish Law, Gnostic thought, a general sociological view or even something as simple as a hair style or manner of dress. Let us not be so quick to associate it with just the physical planet earth. The Jews didn’t think along these lines, so why should we?

Blessings, Ted

[Paidion]

Are you expecting to Jesus to return in a literal, physical body? If yes, please tell me what Scriptures you use...I will not accept assertions or statements.

Jesus' resurrected body was a changed body (as the wheat plant differs from the bare grain I Cor 15), but nevertheless it was a physical body, but not in the sense of our present physical bodies. Our present bodies are mortal. Jesus was raised immortal. For want of a better word, let's call it a "quasi-physical" body. It could go through closed doors, etc. Perhaps a different molecular structure.

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.

And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them. Luke 24:36-43 ESV

Does a non-physical body have flesh and bones, and eat fish?

Acts 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Jesus was taken into heaven in a "quasi-physical" body; He will return in the same way, in the same body.

As for denying the physical (or quasi-physical) resurrection of us all, but instead, going to heaven when we die, consider Justin Martyr's words to Trypho:

... if you have fallen in with some who are called "Christians", but who ... venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians ...

Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 80

[mikew]

Also, you neglect the fact that Jesus was resurrected to a physical body that they were able to touch. You also neglect the fact that we inherit the world (Rom 4:13 -- I prefer the translation by Douglas Moo in "Epistle to the Romans"). So are you imagining that we flutter as ghosts through the world in the fulfillment of Rom 4:13?

Mike W.,

I am unfamiliar with Douglas Moo. What is his word-for-word translation?

Is not Romans 4:1-12 dealing with and contrasting the Law with faith? Does it not deal with Abraham's righteousness through faith and not Law?

Douglas Moo translated Rom 4:13 as
"For it was not through the law that the promise was made to Abraham or to his seed that they should be heirs of the world, but through the righteousness of faith."

My observation is that Rom 4:1-9 is mainly an argument against the Roman's boasting against Jews -- you can't boast about something you got as a gift. Faith doesn't give room for boasting, but the Law working through the flesh led to boasting. Then verses 10 to 12 were to include the Gentiles as children of Abraham. Verses 13 to 17 then showed that the promise to Abraham (that he would be heir of the world) was extended to the Gentile believers too. The mention of the promise was to be combined with faith, as described in Rom 4:18-25, to give the believers hope through persecution. See my website for more of a discussion on these concepts -- look for the Quick Overview and Short Outline.

You are roughly right to say "faith in Christ's work upon Calvary" is what saves us. But Paul now was focusing on a specific promise of benefit that we could rely upon (or originally that the Roman believers could look forward to).

Now when you bring up Rom 9 -- I see this as narrowing the Israel bloodline to only include the bloodline who were of the promise -- i.e. that they came into faith at that time. The whole point of Rom 9 to 11 was to create a benevolent attitude of the Gentile believers toward Jews so that more Jews would be saved before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Remember Romans 9:7? See the correlation between the heavenly city and the true seed? This is the new Jerusalem. How do you enter this city? You enter it by faith...

I would say that the New Jerusalem formed after the old Jerusalem was destroyed. This change of Jerusalem seemed to be what was described somewhere in the first four chapters of Isaiah --where he describes Jerusalem as existing in blessing even after being destroyed.

Did you kow that every single NT reference describing the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven is an abstract noun like faith, hope, courage?

I have seen that most references to the kingdom of God (or heaven) are more as a focus of emphasis rather than being a definition. Matthew 13 provides a unique set (somewhat shown in Mark and Luke) that specifically provides parables of the mysteries of the kingdom. The purpose here was to "explain" some items about the kingdom that were not explained by the introduction of the kingdom in the Old Testament (see Isa 9:6-7, Dan 2 and Dan 7 for example).

So Mike W. I hardly think that your quote of "we flutter as ghosts through the world in the fulfillment of Rom 4:13" is at all in keeping with the topic...You seem to think that the "world" refers to this physical earthly existence, but I disagree. The "world" used here is "kosmos" and simply means "orderly arrangement." Most of the times it refers to the orderly arrangement of the Mosaic Law with all its rituals, feasts and sacrifices. I strongly recommend doing a NT search on Strong's 2889 and see what you come up with...

Ok. from your determination did you figure that Abraham was to inherit a hair design, the world, the Jewish system or something else?

The pattern regarding the world is that God flooded the world in order to clean it up but also to preserve the continuity of creation -- the same DNA, same creatures.
Then in John 3 we see that Christ Jesus came to save the world. Now it may be that the "old heavens and earth" were destroyed, speaking of reference to the Jewish system, but the physical earth was preserved. If Christ hadn't come, the earth would have had to be destroyed too. Or do you assign a different translation than the physical world (or also acceptably, everything on the world -- like as in Noah's flood)?

[Mellontes]

Ok. from your determination did you figure that Abraham was to inherit a hair design, the world, the Jewish system or something else?

The pattern regarding the world is that God flooded the world in order to clean it up but also to preserve the continuity of creation -- the same DNA, same creatures.
Then in John 3 we see that Christ Jesus came to save the world. Now it may be that the "old heavens and earth" were destroyed, speaking of reference to the Jewish system, but the physical earth was preserved. If Christ hadn't come, the earth would have had to be destroyed too. Or do you assign a different translation than the physical world (or also acceptably, everything on the world -- like as in Noah's flood)?

Mike,

I didn't have a problem with what you were saying until you got to this point. I don't think we necessarily have to say that Abraham's inheritance was the "world." In many instances it is referred to as the "promise" that is the inheritance. The promise was first issued from the Jewish "world" of types and shadows - the old covenant.

You said "God flooded the world in order to clean it up ." This paraphrase is in error unless you meant the world as people, but I don't think you did. Especially when you said "it" referring to non-living beings...

2 Peter 2:5 says "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; "

2 Peter 3:6 - Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

This was not the physical planet that perished (it has been wet before and is still largely wet). It was the people who perished.

Then in John 3 we see that Christ Jesus came to save the world. Now it may be that the "old heavens and earth" were destroyed, speaking of reference to the Jewish system, but the physical earth was preserved. If Christ hadn't come, "the earth would have had to be destroyed too." Or do you assign a different translation than the physical world (or also acceptably, everything on the world -- like as in Noah's flood)?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Christ came to save the physical planet? It would seem so because you also added that if He didn't come, the earth would have to be destroyed too. Wow! Was Christ's plan of redemption directed to planets or people? Are planets born in sin and need redeeming or is it people who are born in sin and need redeeming? You can't possibly be thinking like this so I am going to say that I don't understand what you meant here...

John 3:16-17 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

1 Timothy 1:15 - This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

John 1:11 - He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Matthew 15:24 - But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus came into His own. The own are the Jewish people. He came to the world of the Jews. They rejected Him and as a result we [Gentiles] were able to be grafted into the same promise!

The new heaven and earth is about people just as the old heaven and earth was composed of people (as well as the system).

Old covenant = old Jewish system= people belonging to that system
New covenant = being in Christ = people belonging to Christ

Blessings, Ted

[Mellontes]

Acts 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Jesus was taken into heaven in a "quasi-physical" body; He will return in the same way, in the same body.

There is no question that Jesus' body was different in terms we are unable to explain. He was able to enter a room with the doors being shut as well as eat fish. This is neither completely spirit nor completely flesh. I think in terms that both were possible. Spirit to enter room, flesh to eat fish. Angels had the same abilitites but I won't go into that here. I am no angel expert either...

But what I do take issue with is the misunderstanding in the manner of Christ's return. All throughout the OT we learn of the cloud comings in judgment.
The NT says that Christ's coming is to be in the glory of the Father (Mt 16:27).

What did the angels say to that small group of Christians at the ascension? They said He would "come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven," right? So I ask you, how did he go into heaven? The question is not how did He leave the ground, but how He entered heaven. Here is the answer if Scripture has any meaning at all:

Acts 1:9 - And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

It wasn't heaven that concealed Him from the view of the disciples, it was a cloud.

Matthew 26:64 - Jesus saith unto him [Caiaphas - high priest], Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye [plural - high priest and council] see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Why do you think Caiaphas said that Jesus had spoken blasphemy? Caiaphas, a Jew, was quite familiar with the OT cloud comings in judgment which was God's manner. Jesus had just equated Himself with God and Caiaphas wouldn't stand for it and had Him stricken! The very fact that in Matthew 26:67 "Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands" proves the plurality of the group He was addressing...

You probably won't take the time, but I earnestly suggest you and anyone else interested to view the online video "Coming in the Glory of the Father" available at: http://www.thereignofchrist.com/index.p ... Itemid=353

You might want to fast forward it to the 7 minute 25 second mark to avoid all the unnecessary introductory preamble and odd humor. You will need your Bible close at hand and some pretty fast fingers (or you can use the pause button to check out the Scripture references given).

Matthew 24:30 - And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mark 13:26 - And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Mark 14:62 - And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke 21:27 - And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Revelation 1:7 - Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation 14:14 - And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

Revelation 14:16 - And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

Blessings, Ted