The second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead

[Eleanor]

What's the topic of this thread?

So much for "not interested."

You don't know?

 

[Eleanor]

Why then do you not believe them? And that is certainly not an exhaustive list by any means of the expectancy of an imminent first-century return of Christ.

They expected to be raptured.

Is there any record in the church of such an event?

 

[Josheb]

So much for "not interested."

You don't know?

I do know but given the content of your last few posts and despite my effort to get back on topic it is not clear you know because once again a question was asked and not answered.

There goes" neither of which I have much interest."

STRIKE ONE!

Nice try. You would do better if you could distinguish the nature of the equivalency presented.

STRIKE TWO!

Petty. . .

STRIKE THREE!

What's the topic of this thread?

So much for "not interested."

You don't know?

Wanna give it another try?


What is the topic of this thread?

 

[Eleanor]

I do know but given the content of your last few posts and despite my effort to get back on topic it is not clear you know because once again a question was asked and not answered.

Wanna give it another try?

I'm thinkin' your "not interested" may just work for me.

What is the topic of this thread?

 

[Mr GLee]

Amen!

Aside from ignoring the explicitly stated audience affiliations and temporal markers, a person has to completely ignore the implicit urgency with which much of those expectations are written.

I would offer. How would that apply the Jesus the Son of man in whom Christ the Spirit of God did dwell in. . . while still in the womb he was set apart as a witness

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

I would think the beginning of what is called church age (born again believers) began with the prophet, Abel the first martyr .

The first century was not the beginning of the bride of Christ it was the restoring reformation spoken of in Joel. . coming to pass in Acts 2 restored back to the government of God to what are called Judges as them that brings the living word the jusge ment of god . God reigning in the hearts of mankind through his prophets sent as apostle Abel the first apostle Men and woman prophets the atheist Jew forbind the jewish woman's from participating in the ceremonies another high wall was separate the gentiles, both came down the gospel explosion like never before or ever again great tribulation for some other leaping joy , the shadow became substance

Acts 2:15-17King James Version15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

As long as there were Kings in Israel not any of what was revealed in Joel was allowed. Venerable men. The men only club. .

God had restored the order of the atheist Jews as false apostles sent with false prophecy (oral traditons of dying mankind They refused to believe in God not seen .No physical representation of mankind's. . . the idea of King . no place for the King of kings

1 Samuel 8: 4-7 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Atheism at work.

Again the first century reformation restored to the order of the Christs bride, the church just as sola scriptura as a carbon copy worked in the 15th century. or any generation.

 

[Wordsmith]

Which is the problem that started this digression to begin with: no scriptural support for something called a "church age," the claim the end of the age is the last age.

Would you please explain what YOU believe Jesus meant in the verse below. When did the church begin and when will it cease to be called the church if ever? Not interested the Peter /Pope question just what Jesus meant about His church. If you have already addressed this please refer me to the post #. Thanks

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

They expected to be raptured.

Is there any record in the church of such an event?

The mere fact that this question is being asked shows that you are still putting your own perceptions of what happened in ancient history as the benchmark for how scripture should be interpreted. You then become the arbiter of scripture truth - not the testimony of scripture itself.

These individuals expected to be raptured because Christ had told them that He would return and "receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." And He told them when He would return, which was before some of those He spoke to in during His earthly ministry had died (Matthew 16:27-28).

Christ also told them in Matthew 24:15 that if they read their Daniel scriptures, they would understand the timing of His return ("Whoso readeth, let him understand...". Daniel 12:11-13 spoke very particularly about the end of the 1,335 days including a resurrection in which Daniel would himself participate. When the first-century believers saw those two events Daniel prophesied taking place in the same season of time, they were to wait while they counted forward those 1,335 days until Christ's return. If they suffered and died under persecution during those days, they would participate like Daniel in that coming resurrection and rapture of the resurrected believers at Christ's return. This countdown was important for the first-century believers because they would personally experience the time of this bodily resurrection. But for you and me, we await the timing of the next resurrection event hinted at in Zechariah 14:16-19 instead.

 

[Mr GLee]

Would you please explain what YOU believe Jesus meant in the verse below. When did the church begin and when will it cease to be called the church if ever? Not interested the Peter /Pope question just what Jesus meant about His church. If you have already addressed this please refer me to the post #. Thanks

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And what was the first thing Peter our brother in the lord did after he received the so called "key" that the gates of hell could never prevail against ? Did Christ rebuke Peter. What was the object to the lesson?

 

[Mr GLee]

The mere fact that this question is being asked shows that you are still putting your own perceptions of what happened in ancient history as the benchmark for how scripture should be interpreted. You then become the arbiter of scripture truth - not the testimony of scripture itself.

These individuals expected to be raptured because Christ had told them that He would return and "receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." And He told them when He would return, which was before some of those He spoke to in during His earthly ministry had died (Matthew 16:27-28).

Christ also told them in Matthew 24:15 that if they read their Daniel scriptures, they would understand the timing of His return ("Whoso readeth, let him understand...". Daniel 12:11-13 spoke very particularly about the end of the 1,335 days including a resurrection in which Daniel would himself participate. When the first-century believers saw those two events Daniel prophesied taking place in the same season of time, they were to wait while they counted forward those 1,335 days until Christ's return. If they suffered and died under persecution during those days, they would participate like Daniel in that coming resurrection and rapture of the resurrected believers at Christ's return. This countdown was important for the first-century believers because they would personally experience the time of this bodily resurrection. But for you and me, we await the timing of the next resurrection event hinted at in Zechariah 14:16-19 instead.

Another way to look at it.

Matthew 16: 24-27 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

The words For the Son of man "shall" come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

The words "shall" represent a law. When he came is the present time. He was there .Its all about following him who was there not something that comes later and not there. .

 

[Josheb]

Aside from ignoring the explicitly stated audience affiliations and temporal markers, a person has to completely ignore the implicit urgency with which much of those expectations are written.

I would offer. How would that apply [to] the Jesus the Son of man in whom Christ the Spirit of God did dwell in... while still in the womb he was set apart as a witness

How would what apply?

• Pick a text.
• Never proof-text, or single out one verse and remove it from its surrounding text.
• Identify its author.
• Identify its stated audience.
• Identify any explicit statements pertaining to time.
• Identify any urgency implied by the text itself.
• Start with what is stated and do not infer or assume anything not stated.

That is how that would apply to Jesus the Son of Man in whom Christ the Spirit of God did dwell.

.....the Jesus the Son of man in whom Christ the Spirit of God did dwell in......

I don't know what you mean by that clause because the sentence in which it occurs is poorly worded and makes no sense as written. I've inserted the word "to" to make it readable but please do amend the sentence correctly if the "to" isn't what was intended. As far as the clause goes, there is no such thing in scripture as "Christ the Spirit of God," so you'll have to explain your meaning and intent. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and attempting another cogent conversation because in the past I have found the contents of your posts godless and previous exchanges lead me to conclude your participation insincere, so I don't reply to your posts (I read them, but I don't reply).

1. The word "Christ" simply means "anointed." It's a Greek alternative to the Hebrew "Mashiach," or "Messiah," which in Judaism has eschatological significance because the anointed one of God was believed to fulfill certain prophecies in specific ways - ways specified by Jewish interpretation of their scriptures that often times turned out to be incorrect. The term "Christ" is a title, not his name. There were many anointed people, or people anointed by God in the Bible, but Jesus is THE anointed one, not just one among many. I assume you know most or all of that.

Now if you did not mean to imply the "Christ" is "the Spirit," please clarify that so I better understand what is intended. If the intent is to say the Christ" is the Spirit then please provide some scripture proving that position, and please do so in a manner that does not run into conflict with texts like Romans 8:9-11.

Romans 8:9-11
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Because we see Paul is drawing an equivalence between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Jesus does not "have" God's Spirit; God's Spirit is Jesus' Spirit.

Mak sure your explanation of "Christ the Spirit" does not run into conflict with the fact Jesus commands the Spirit, not the other way around. If Jesus is just and otherwise ordinary human male with some special anointing whereby he performs particular behaviors the Spirit cannot said to be his and it is the Spirit who directs him, not the other way around.

2. Please also clarify what I'm supposed to understand by "did dwell in..." because there was never a time when the Spirit of God was not (also) the Spirit of Christ, and never a time when God's Spirit was not a constituent component of Jesus' constitution. Some Christians hold Jesus' anointing began at his baptism when the Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove and God fulfilled Psalm 2:7 to say Jesus was His son. The psalm's "today" and "begotten," are conspicuously absent from the gospels. More importantly, however, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by the sperm, work, nor will of a human male. Neither does the scripture report Mary contributed an ovum, even though many Christians assume that because of Genesis 3:15. The specific clarification for which I am asking has to do with the intended meaning of "did dwell in," because if Jesus was conceived by God's Spirit then there has never been a single moment during his incarnation when the Spirit did not just "dwell" in him, but was an intrinsic part of his being, his ontology.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Well....

Start with the basics.

How would what apply?

• Pick a text.
• Never proof-text, or single out one verse and remove it from its surrounding text.
• Identify its author.
• Identify its stated audience.
• Identify any explicit statements pertaining to time.
• Identify any urgency implied by the text itself.
• Start with what is stated and do not infer or assume anything not stated.

The text has been picked = 2 Corinthians 5:16. But it has been proof-texted, or singled out and removed from its surrounding text.

I am reluctant to do this because 2 Corinthians 5:16 is not specifically eschatological. It has nothing to do with the inquiry of this op - at least I am not yet seeing it. That means your inquiry leaves the op and is off-topic. I do not do digression, and since I believe you know that I also know I am being asked to digress by someone who knows I don't do digression. But, as I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I hope you will, in a timely manner, tie this verse and the request, back to the subject of this op.

Or choose another text that does pertain to this op's specific content and inquiry.

I would think the beginning of what is called church age (born again believers)

That assumes a "church age" exists and its existence and the veracity of the label has yet to be proven and defined in a universally agreeable way. I have already noted how Dispensationalism construes the church age differently from all other eschatological views, and the problems of ambiguity and false equivalence that ensue when people use like terms with different meanings. I have also noted the correlation scripture, Jewish theology, and Christian theology all place on the qahal and ecclesia, thereby indicating if there is such a thing as "the church age," - the ecclesia age - then it transcends both Testaments and is not a New Testament phenomenon.

Do not assume it. Prove it.

.....began with the prophet, Abel the first martyr .

If that is a reference to Luke 11 then Jesus did not actually call Abel a prophet. If inferences are not read into the text, then all Jesus did was mark time from the first man born into a post-disobedient world to the time of the last prophets before John and Jesus. Furthermore, the focus of the text is not on Abel, but on the disobedience of the Jewish leaders in attendance (and their ilk) and Jesus' judgment. The Luke 11 passage references a dozen or more OT texts so it's not a pair of verses that can be properly exegeted in a single post. So keep it simple: Aside from the inference Abel is included as a prophet with Zechariah, what other evidence is there? Beginning with what is explicitly stated, what is the evidence?

Because we do not proof-text and call it sound exegesis, sound thinking, sound doctrine, or sound practice.

 

[Mr GLee]

• Pick a text.
• Never proof-text, or single out one verse and remove it from its surrounding text.
• Identify its author.
• Identify its stated audience.
• Identify any explicit statements pertaining to time.
• Identify any urgency implied by the text itself.
• Start with what is stated and do not infer or assume anything not stated

I would agree. What happens when one assumes a parable is not in view and they offer the literal historical but no spiritual understanding?

That not seen the eternal faith of Christ. . principle.

I don't know what you mean by that clause because the sentence in which it occurs is poorly worded and makes no sense as written. I've inserted the word "to" to make it readable but please do amend the sentence correctly if the "to" isn't what was intended. As far as the clause goes, there is no such thing in scripture as "Christ the Spirit of God," so you'll have to explain your meaning and intent. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and attempting another cogent conversation because in the past I have found the contents of your posts godless and previous exchanges lead me to conclude your participation insincere, so I don't reply to your posts (I read them, but I don't reply)

I think We are talking about the flesh of the Son of man Jesus in regard to a second coming. I said one demonstration was all that was prophesied. Eternal God has no flesh

If that is a reference to Luke 11 then Jesus did not actually call Abel a prophet. If inferences are not read into the text, then all Jesus did was mark time from the first man born into a post-disobedient world to the time of the last prophets before John and Jesus. Furthermore, the focus of the text is not on Abel

The reference to Abel as a prophet is not about him alone it includes all the prophets to include Jesus the Son of man. God's word prophecy were against disobedience of the Jewish leaders .They refused the hearken to sola scriptura the book of prophecy

Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

 

[Josheb]

I would agree. What happens when one assumes a parable is not in view and they offer the literal historical but no spiritual understanding? That not seen the eternal faith of Christ. . principle.

What is the relevance to the op?

I think We are talking about the flesh of the Son of man Jesus in regard to a second coming.

No, we're not. I read no mention of any "flesh" in the op.

I said one demonstration was all that was prophesied. Eternal God has no flesh

He has no human flesh. God being Spirit and God being invisible does not mean God does not have mass or form, and this op is specifically on the second coming and the resurrection of the dead.

The reference to Abel as a prophet is not about him alone it includes all the prophets to include Jesus the Son of man. God's word prophecy were against disobedience of the Jewish leaders .They refused the hearken to sola scriptura the book of prophecy

Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Relevance to the op?

Please be succinct.

 

[Josheb]

Would you please explain what YOU believe Jesus meant in the verse below. When did the church begin and when will it cease to be called the church if ever? Not interested the Peter /Pope question just what Jesus meant about His church. If you have already addressed this please refer me to the post #. Thanks

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

After you clarify the question and explain the relevance of the inquiry to this op.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Eternal God has no flesh

The eternal Christ Jesus does. "He being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him". Also, "He ever liveth to make intercession for us." Once Christ was raised from the grave in a glorified body of flesh and bones, that form never died again and continued to exist, serving as our Great High Priest intercessor before God. If there were no human / divine intercessor in heaven, your faith is in vain and none of your prayers could be heard since you would have no like representative.

It is that same glorified flesh and bones body which Christ displayed to the disciples that ascended to heaven. The promise was that He would return to earth "in like manner" as he ascended into heaven. That meant the same glorified form of flesh and bones which left this earth.

 

[Eleanor]

The mere fact that this question is being asked shows that you are still putting your own perceptions of what happened in ancient history as the benchmark for how scripture should be interpreted.

That's some blinders there.
And whose perception are you using as "the benchmark of how Scripture should be interpreted?"

You then become the arbiter of scripture truth - not the testimony of scripture itself.

Straw man. . .your interpretation of Scripture is not equivalent to scripture truth.
I become the arbiter of your interpretation. . .not the same thing.

The testimony of Scripture is that there is only one God.
The testimony of Scriptures is likewise that there are three divine (God) agents/persons.
The arbiter of those Scriptures is Scripture itself, understood in agreement with all of itself.
Your interpretation of Scripture is not in agreement with apostolic teaching.

These individuals expected to be raptured because Christ had told them that He would return and "receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." And He told them when He would return, which was before some of those He spoke to in during His earthly ministry had died (Matthew 16:27-28).

Unless he was talking about his coming transfiguration a week later (Mt 17:1), which demonstrated the glory in which he would return, and was a foretaste of what his second coming will be like (2 Pe 1:16).

Christ also told them in Matthew 24:15 that if they read their Daniel scriptures, they would understand the timing of His return

They asked about the "end of the age," and Mt 24 is what he revealed to them, the end of both the OT age and the end of the NT age.

The end of the NT age is given in Mt 24:4-14, 23-31, where both the day of judgment and the second coming is stated,
the end of the OT age is given in Mt 24:15-25, where the abomination that causes desolation (Da 11:31, 12:1) which, in its parallel passage of Lk 21:20-24, is the surrounding of Jerusalem by the Roman army.

("Whoso readeth, let him understand...". Daniel 12:11-13 spoke very particularly about the end

Da 12 is about the end of the NT where the resurrection is of both the righteous and the wicked (Jn 5:28-20) of all mankind at the end of time, as is the sheep and goat judgment at the resurrection at the end of time (Mt 25:31-46).

of the 1,355 days, including a resurrection in which Daniel would himself participate.

Yes, all mankind will participate in the resurrection at the end of the NT, including Daniel.

When the first-century believers saw those two events Daniel prophesied taking place in the same season of time, they were to wait while they counted forward those 1,335 days until Christ's return. If they suffered and died under persecution during those days, they would participate like Daniel in that coming resurrection and rapture of the resurrected believers at Christ's return. This countdown was important for the first-century believers because they would personally experience the time of this bodily resurrection. But for you and me, we await the timing of the next resurrection event hinted at in Zechariah 14:16-19 instead.

Literal interpretation of highly figurative prophetic riddles (Nu 12:8) is leading you to contra-NT apostolic conclusions.

 

[Mr GLee]

The eternal Christ Jesus does. "He being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him". Also, "He ever liveth to make intercession for us." Once Christ was raised from the grave in a glorified body of flesh and bones, that form never died again and continued to exist, serving as our Great High Priest intercessor before God. If there were no human / divine intercessor in heaven, your faith is in vain and none of your prayers could be heard since you would have no like representative.

It is that same glorified flesh and bones body which Christ displayed to the disciples that ascended to heaven. The promise was that He would return to earth "in like manner" as he ascended into heaven. That meant the same glorified form of flesh and bones which left this earth.

Dying flesh is not eternal?

Eternal God as Christ strengthened our brother in the Lord.Jesus the Son of man . He cried out not a I will I have no power. But as you will the one with power.

Jesus our brother in the Lord replied who soever does the will of the Father berlingot his family God is one he created families

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And whose perception are you using as "the benchmark of how Scripture should be interpreted?"

It's no one's particular perception that is the benchmark. It is the specific time-relevant language which scripture employs. And audience relevance is often disregarded for those to whom the material was originally addressed. When this happens, the scriptures in effect become applicable to everyone else except the first-century believers. It is almost forbidden to apply anything to them.

Unless he was talking about his coming transfiguration a week later (Mt 17:1), which demonstrated the glory in which he would return, and was a foretaste of what his second coming will be like (2 Pe 1:16).

No, Christ was not talking about His coming transfiguration a week later. No rewards were given, no angels accompanied Him, and no resurrection took place. The Mount pictured none of those things which Christ predicted in Matthew 16:27. It would have been an absolutely useless prediction to the people for Christ to have said, "There are some of you who will not have died before a week from now. Most of you will have died by a week from now, but some of you will still be alive in a week to see me on the Mount of Transfiguration." (And 2 Peter 1:16 was written about the original first coming of Christ at His baptism, of which Peter said they were eye-witnesses of His majesty on that occasion. That was not Christ's second coming which Peter was referring to.)

They asked about the "end of the age," and Mt 24 is what he revealed to them, the end of both the OT age and the end of the NT age.

Uh, no, Christ on that occasion only spoke of one end of the age - not the end of the NT ages (plural). And He said that all those things He had listed would be fulfilled before that generation in His days had passed away. And that included a day of judgment and a second coming return.

Yes, all mankind will participate in the resurrection at the end of the NT, including Daniel.

Daniel already was resurrected back in AD 70 at the end of that 1,335th day. One of those two time markers Daniel predicted to start the 1,335 day countdown to the resurrection was the taking away of a daily sacrifice. This was a temple function, which couldn't possibly take place today because there is no temple in Jerusalem with daily sacrifices being made. By the time all Daniel's predictions were accomplished, the "power of the holy people" was going to be shattered within the "time, times, and half a time". That was a first-century phenomenon.

 

[Eleanor]

It's no one's particular perception that is the benchmark. It is the specific time-relevant language which scripture employs. And audience relevance is often disregarded for those to whom the material was originally addressed. When this happens, the scriptures in effect become applicable to everyone else except the first-century believers. It is almost forbidden to apply anything to them.
No, Christ was not talking about His coming transfiguration a week later. No rewards were given, no angels accompanied Him, and no resurrection took place. The Mount pictured none of those things which Christ predicted in Matthew 16:27. It would have been an absolutely useless prediction to the people for Christ to have said, "There are some of you who will not have died before a week from now. Most of you will have died by a week from now, but some of you will still be alive in a week to see me on the Mount of Transfiguration." (And 2 Peter 1:16 was written about the original first coming of Christ at His baptism, of which Peter said they were eye-witnesses of His majesty on that occasion. That was not Christ's second coming which Peter was referring to.)

Uh, no, Christ on that occasion only spoke of one end of the age - not the end of the NT ages (plural).

So seeing "standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation' spoken of through the prophet Daniel" of Mt 24:15-23,
which in its parallel passage of Lk 21:20-24 is "Jerusalem being surrounded by (Roman) armies,"
refers to the end of the NT age and not the end of the OT age?

Not in my neck o' the woods.

 

[Mr GLee]

The eternal Christ Jesus does. "He being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him". Also, "He ever liveth to make intercession for us." Once Christ was raised from the grave in a glorified body of flesh and bones, that form never died again and continued to exist, serving as our Great High Priest intercessor before God. If there were no human / divine intercessor in heaven, your faith is in vain and none of your prayers could be heard since you would have no like representative.

It is that same glorified flesh and bones body which Christ displayed to the disciples that ascended to heaven. The promise was that He would return to earth "in like manner" as he ascended into heaven. That meant the same glorified form of flesh and bones which left this earth.

What reason would Jesus saying his flesh profits for nothing in an answer to those who were hoping it could They walked away faithless no power from God. Peter said to whom else can we go you have living word of eternal life. His word is Spirit and spirit life giving.

What good could dying aging flesh have? good to look at?

God is not a man. I would offer. .

John 6:63-68 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Again, Peter did not say you have flesh of eternal life . God is not a man. He worked in the Son of man jesus

 

[Wordsmith]

After you clarify the question and explain the relevance of the inquiry to this op.

It goes to your post about the "church age". It seems you very good at what is not in scripture but when ask how you view a passage to answer a question with a question is not a great debate tactic.

My question was simple and needs no explanation. What do you believe about the passage ? Answer or not.