The bibles teachings of Jesus and his risen state proves that he will not visibly return at his coming. We know Jesus does not have the same body that he had on earth since it was his body that he sacrificed and sacrifices demand something to be lost, it is the very meaning of the word and is irrefutable.
Jesus gave both his blood and body on mankind’s behalf as a ransom, he sacrificed those things. If he sacrificed them then they are gone and are unable to be taken back without nullifying that sacrifice.
(Hebrews 10:10) ”..By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time..”
(Luke 22:19, 20) “..Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf..”
If one of your family members was in huge debt and you decided to pay that debt off on their behalf, sacrificing your money so that they could be debt free, if after going to the debtor and handing over the money and making your family member “officially debt free” you asked for that money back, has the debt been paid and have you lost out on any money? No, you’ve in effect sacrificed nothing as you still have the very thing you said you were giving up and moreover the debt is still outstanding.
Likewise Jesus stated he was sacrificing his body and blood on behalf of mankind’s sins. If Jesus gave his body, was dead for three days, but then proceeded to take it back, then he has in effect lost and sacrificed nothing, he still retains the flesh he had prior to the sacrifice. Has the debt been paid? No because he took back the thing that was meant to pay for our sins the same way the money in my analogy was meant to pay for the debt, at no point could you ask for the money back without the debt becoming outstanding again.
Again, the meaning of sacrifice in both Greek and English demand the same thing, for something to be lost, forfeited and given on behalf of something. You won't find a single example in the Bible where something is a sacrifice and the thing that is sacrificed is NOT lost.
Taking these things into account it was impossible for Jesus to be raised having the same body he forfeited without him nullifying the ransom. This Jesus must have been raised in a spiritual body with that spiritual body being something different in essence to his fleshly one. Since the bible teaches Jesus was not flesh prior coming to earth it would make sense he took that same type of non-flesh form that he had previously, I will touch on this later.
Simply taking the ransom into account it is impossible for Jesus return to be visibly in a human form since it was his human nature that he forfeited in exchange for mankind.
Greetings again NWL, I suggest that your view of “a spirit” is different to my view. I believe that Jesus is a spirit in the sense that he has a spiritual body, a body that is sustained by the Spirit of God, no longer requiring food, water and air and operating on blood to exist. This spiritual body is the same body that Jesus possessed during his mortal existence, but it has been restored and raised from the death state, then changed from mortality to immortality, but having much of the semblance of his original body. It is ambiguous to call this changed body “a body of flesh”, but it is a spiritual body with substance and still identified by Paul as a man in 1 Timothy 2:5, the man Christ Jesus.
Your understanding of a spiritual is not found in scripture. In 1 Cor 15:44 for instance it makes a clear difference between the "physical body" (Greek word def: tangible)and a "spiritual body". If the spiritual body was also "physical" then it makes no sense for the writer to make the comparison between physical bodies and spiritual bodies if in essence they are the same thing apart from the latter being immortal, an immortal spiritual body that is physical is still physical according to you.
Also, it is my understanding that the reference of Jesus being a "man" in 1 Tim 2:5 is speaking of Jesus in the past tense. 1 Tim 2:5 was written
after Jesus ascension, just like the bible writers called Jesus "a man" when speaking of him on earth the writer of 1 tim 2:5 was also talking of Jesus in this sense. This is apparent from the context,
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all". As you can see it spoke as Jesus being a man who then gave himself as a ransom, the verse it not talking about the Jesus as being a "Man" in his risen state.
Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God. Were they created invisible? Jesus fulfills the role for which Adam and Eve were created but failed. Jesus was in the moral image of the glory of God during his ministry John 1:14, and he is now fully in the moral and physical image and likeness of God.
Adam and Eve being in the likeness of God is in reference to possessing the same attributes as God, the thing that separated us from the animals in the creation account, it was not talking about physical appearance or body make up. Remember Phil 2:5,6 states that Jesus was existing in the same form of God, scripture states "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), Jesus after emptying himself "took a slave’s
form and became human" (Phil 2:7). Note that Jesus prior coming to earth was not in appearance and form of a human/slave. John 1:14 states the same thing saying that Jesus "became flesh" when coming to earth expressing that he was NOT flesh prior to becoming flesh.
I see you asked in reference to Adam and Eve "where they created invisible?" as a rhetorical question as part of your reasoning that God is not invisible. Again, the reason why they were not invisible was because they were "images of God" in a different sense to Jesus. You can't have two opposing statements that are both true, once you note a contradiction in scripture it means that part of your reasoning or understanding is not sound somewhere. The scriptures plainly state God is "invisible" not defining what that means other than what it could be understood as upon face value. Thus, we must understand the text to mean God is literally invisible in his natural state. If your understanding is that Adam and eve were literal images of God but they of course weren't invisible then it should be a clear indicator that something with your interpretation is incorrect and needs further thought since again, you cannot have two opposing statements that are both correct. Since being "an image of God" can be understood in a different way, but God having an attribute of being "invisible" cannot, it should be clear as to which understanding is out of touch.
Yes, to the extent that this is meant by this expression. Jesus is the full moral and physical glory of the Father. I do not believe that God the Father is invisible in the sense that he has no substance or matter. He is a glorious substantial being, and Jesus in the body of a glorified man sits at his right hand in heaven. We have not been given a full description of what God looks like, but to me the word invisible in relation to God, does not convey the concept of having no substance. Rather God has not been directly revealed, and man in his sinfulness and mortality cannot directly look upon God. When we are immortal we may be privileged to see God Matthew 5:8, as the angels who stand in God's presence can see God now.
The extent to which Jesus is like God goes as far as Jesus being exactly the same thing God is, since that is literally what the verse states, that Jesus is "the exact representation of his very being", thus if God is invisible then Jesus too is invisible, if Jesus is not invisible then he can't be "the exact representation of his very being". Would you agree with this basic logic? If your answer is a
no then I'l have to ask you how is it possible to be the exact image/representation of something and yet
not be the exact image/representation of that person at the same time?
Since the Bible does not further define what it means for God to be called invisible are you stating that the scriptures are incorrect when it states God is invisible when compared to the everyday definition of the word?
What does being invisible mean to you?
