The Presence of Christ: Lesson in Logic

August 10, 2012 by Jason Bradfield

17 Comments 17 Comments

The presence and absence of Christ spoken of in the Gospels presents a devastating problem for hyperpreterists.

Samuel Frost

good stuff
thomas greenlee

Jason,

Are you sure you do not wish to recant again and think through the doctrines you are just now positing?

As I understand you, you are saying that Jesus emptied himself of his divine nature and remained in his divine life giving spiritual nature with his apostles on earth, while in his human nature emptied of his divine nature he ascended up to heaven to sit on his throne as a human man at the right hand of the father, and as a human man only separated from his life giving spiritual nature he is now interceding for our sin..So you have Jesus as God forever on earth and Jesus as a spiritless man forever in heaven.

And this hypopreterist futurism is your definition of logical?

Tom
- http://thereignofchrist.com Sam
  
  Tom, you are going to have to reword your charge here in that what you have written makes absolutely no sense. We affirm Chalcedon. You don’t. It’s that simple.
- http://thereignofchrist.com/ Jason L Bradfield
  
  Tom, no, that is not my definition of “logical” because i have absolutely no idea what you are saying.
thomas greenlee

Jason/Sam,

you claim to solve the contradiction with your hypopreterist futurist creation of a splitting of the dual nature of Jesus.Your solution is to put the human bodily Jesus without his divine nature in heaven while you keep the divine Jesus without his body on earth with his apostles.

I think you ought to get together with Dr. John Noe and see how he solves your dilemma, he posed this same solution long before you came up with it. While you are at it, maybe you could answer the question I asked him at that time that he could not and did not answer i.e. “If Jesus never went away, why then was it necessary for him to send the Holy Spirit to be with them and in them even though he himself was still with them and in them always to the end of the age?”

You claim to dig yourself out of one hole while digging yourself into an even greater one. The failure to account for the necessity of the PRESENCE, POWER and WORK of the HOLY Spirit.

Tom
- http://thereignofchrist.com/ Jason L Bradfield
  
  I did answer the question. That is what the whole podcast was about. We both agree that Jesus left. And unless you ignore his promise to be with them until the end of the age, you would have to agree that there is a sense in which he didn’t leave.
  Well, it seems awfully obvious to me now that the sense in which he left was in regards to his human nature; which includes a body. He physically left them. Acts 1 clearly demonstrates that.
  And there is nothing illogical about that answer.
  
  If that isn’t the sense, then what is? The question is just as applicable to you as it is to anyone else.
  In what sense did he leave and in what sense did he stay, Tom?
- http://thereignofchrist.com Sam
  
  Tom, you wrote, ” put the human bodily Jesus without his divine nature in heaven while you keep the divine Jesus without his body on earth with his apostles.” This makes no sense, and is not like ANYTHING we have said on the matter. Again, we AFFIRM Chalcedon and the Westminster on this, so we did not “make up” this solution. Second, as you have it defined above, that is NOT our solution….not even close.
thomas greenlee

Sam/Jason,

I am sorry that I asked the question that puts you hypopreterist futurists between a rock and a hard place. I realize now that your blind doctrinal adherence to the creeds prevents you from answering the doctrinal question concerning the necessity of the Holy Spirit, without disavowing the creeds. But don’t feel bad, Dr. Noe before you, was also stymied, and it seems the hypopreterist creeds also can’t answer the question of the Holy Spirit. It’s quite unfortunate since sin against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that cannot be forgiven.

i don’t know Sam if you listened to Jason’s podcast, But he very clearly said that the very man nature of Jesus, his body, was taken up into heaven, while his very God divine nature remained on earth with his apostles. So, which is it? Was Jesus in his total dual nature taken up into heaven as both very man and very God from which he would return as both very man and very God? Or was he taken up into heaven as very man only and will return as very man only, since his very God nature never was taken up into heaven?

you can continue to blindly assert your doctrine but serious Bible students are aware of the new contradiction your hypopreterism creates and they reject it

Tom
- http://thereignofchrist.com/ Jason L Bradfield
  
  Tom, this is a prime example of why I have urged Sam and others to leave this stuff alone. Perhaps if you all weren’t so bent on hating Christianity, you would actually take the time to read to understand it. The omnipresence of Christ is a characteristic of his divine nature and NEVER MOVES TO AND FRO.
  
  I NEVER once implied that it did. You are putting words into my mouth.
  
  Please, for love of Pete Sampras, stop wasting my time with your ignorant assertions and insinuations of blasphemy and pick up a Heidelberg and read to understand the dang thing for once. You guys are absolutely clueless.
  - http://thereignofchrist.com Sam
    
    Tom’s reply is about as ignorant as it can get. Notice that he defines “human nature” with “body”. It’s not even worth answering because it is so distorted. It shows the lack of depth in incarnational theology and the two natures of the one Person, Jesus Christ (Chalcedon). Perhaps the only good thing in this is to further expose the Hyper Preterist ignorance on some of the most fundamental points of theology – all in the name of the AD 70 Idol.
    - Richard Duncan
      
      “all in the name of the AD 70 Idol.”
      
      WOW. You want to talk about idols? Holy cow! How about that “Reformed” idol of yours Sam? Remember the whole reason why you suddenly departed from Preterism? Remember when you finally connected the dots that showed, assuming Preterism is correct, the Reformed position to be in error/unattainable? I think I remember a podcast you did with a guy named Brian that also connect the dots? So, what did you do? Instead of being “Reformed” (“ever changing” to quote you) you rejected everything your studied yourself into so you could claim you are of the “Reformed” tradition; only its the one that seems to be “set in stone”. lol
      
      With that said, I also can’t understand a thing Tom is saying. So, I don’t know if I agree with him or not.
      - http://thereignofchrist.com/ Jason L Bradfield
        
        No Rich, it wasn’t a sudden departure. Even the pretcosmobessedwithsam crowd will tell you that.
- QuantumGreg
  
  Tom, is it not a dilemma. It is really quite simple. Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. You have to deny scripture to say that that is not true. Jesus is as simply God as if He were not man, and as plainly man as if He were not God. The man went to heaven and will return. He, however, is present with us via the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t come from creeds (although the creeds contain this stuff)… it is the logical, systematic outworking of the scriptures… very prominent, very easily shown… that is, unless you’re a close-minded full preterist.
thomas greenlee

Thank you Quantum Greg,

I appreciate the fact that you also have correctly recognized Jason/ Sam’s unresolvable contradiction.you repudiate their fallacies with your comment “He, however, is present with us via the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t come from creeds (although the creeds contain this stuff)… it is the logical, systematic outworking of the scriptures… very prominent, very easily shown..” Kudo’s to you QG. Perhaps you would be better served if you were to begin instructing Jason/Sam in the truth of the gospel, maybe they won’t think you are a stupid blasphemer and will actually begin to learn something.

In the meantime you will notice that they stayed as far away as an ad hominem attack can take them in their avoidance of answering the contradiction that you so easily and scripturally solved through a systematic, logical outworking of the scriptures..

Tom

Jason/Sam, my comment to quantum Greg is a sufficient answer to your comments.
Tom.
- http://thereignofchrist.com Sam
  
  Tom, Greg, Jason and myself AGREE 100 %. This proves to me that you have no idea what you are saying….me and Greg AGREE! Sheesh.
http://www.facebook.com/kengallowaypalmer Ken Palmer

Hey Tom,

Please correct me, but are you implying that Pentecost is the “second coming”?

Thanks.
thomas greenlee

Hey Ken,

Its been awhile, I miss your site. No Ken I am not implying what you ask. I am addressing Jason’s podcast and I am not implying anything, I am stating positively that Jason is in error, just as quantum Greg is doing and I concur with him.

Thanks Ken,
Tom

Richard Duncan,
If you understand what Jason/Sam said then you understand what I said since I said they were in error.

Tom

Share with your friends!