The disciples could not see Jesus when He was hidden in a cloud, so the angels asked why they were looking into the sky.
It was the angels who said, this same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven. and what they said shows that they had seen Jesus go up.
Actually it does not matter if it was the angels or the author of Acts who said that, it still shows what was meant by the story.
I already know what was
meant by the story, but that doesn't mean I believe the story line. Anyone can wrote a story but that doesn't mean it is true.
Our corruptible natural bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Corruption cannot inherit incorruption. So the natural body is changed to an immortal and incorruptible body.
1Cor 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
I know that and that is what I have been saying all along.
To me it is the Bible which is the truth. The Bible is inspired by God.
A spiritual body is not a spirit (as the resurrected body of Jesus was not) and was not invisible, and could ascend to and live in heaven and can come back the same way it ascended.
The author of Acts was Luke, the companion of Paul, the one who wrote 1Cor 15:40, but as I said, it was an angel who said that the same Jesus would return as they had seen Him ascend.
I never claimed that a spiritual body is a spirit nor did I say that it is invisible.
Even it a spiritual body could come back the same way it ascended the spiritual body o Jesus is not coming back that way.
(John 14:19, John 16:10, John 17:4, John 17:11)
I suppose that is true, however there is no indication in the gospels that there was any other Son of Man but Jesus. The only place that comes from is Baha'i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or imo, the false Christ.
Christians believe that everything in the Bible is about Jesus, but it’s not.
Son of man is not a title that belongs exclusively to Jesus as is the title Son of God.
37 Bible verses about Son Of Man
Son of man
"
Son of man", "
son of Adam", or "
like a man", are phrases used in the
Hebrew Bible, various
apocalyptic works of the
intertestamental period, and in the
Greek New Testament. In the indefinite form ("son of Adam", "son of man", "like a man") used in the Hebrew Bible it is a form of address, or it contrasts
human beings against
God and the
angels, or contrasts foreign nations (like Persia and Babylon), which are often represented as animals in apocalyptic writings (bear, goat, or ram), with Israel which is represented as human (a "son of man"), or it signifies an
eschatological human figure.
In its indefinite form it is used in the
Greek Old Testament,
Biblical apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha. The Greek New Testament uses the earlier indefinite form while introducing a novel definite form, "the son of man."
Son of man - Wikipedia
It is not that yesterdays good news has suddenly become not true or out of date for people of today.
2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. 3
For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4 So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Yesterday's good news gospel message is still good but it is not news anymore since everyone in the world has heard it.
If people wanted to be saved by the cross sacrifice they have had plenty of opportunities.
The gospel massage has accomplished what it is going to accomplish so now it is time to move on. I see no point in preaching old news when we have a new message that is pertinent for today's world.
Acts 1:9-11 is just an obvious example of why Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus. I, as a Bible believer, do not have to go past that,,,,,,,,,,,,, but I have and have seen the same sort of examples in most things Baha'i says about the meanings in the Bible.
If Baha'u'llah is a Messenger from God then we should believe him.
We can tell if he is however by if he agrees with the Bible, and clearly what Baha'i teaches changes the whole meaning of the Bible and does not agree with it.
Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus and He never claimed to be, but since Jesus never promised to return this is exactly what we would expect to see, another man who was the fulfillment of the return of Christ.
Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament. Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world. That means that the return of Christ has to be another Person.
It does not matter what the men who wrote the Bible intended for it to mean since that is history. Nobody knew that it would not be the same Jesus who would return back then, and that is why we have verses like Acts1:9-11. You cannot look at a book written 2000 years ago and expect that people who wrote it would know what has happened since then.
The disciples did not know, but even 2000 years ago, Jesus knew He was not going to return to earth
.John 14:19, John 16:10, John 17:4, John 17:11
With regard to the return of Christ, it is what Christianity teaches that changes the intended meaning of the Bible.
Sad but true, since the Christians have led millions of people astray by teaching that the same man Jesus is going to return.
How long will this go on till they finally face the fact that Jesus is not coming back to earth?
