Preterism

That all is true. I wasn't calling you a J.W.
I was asking how your belief in a spiritual resurrection differs in their concept of a spiritual resurrection. They claim to believe in the resurrection, but it is a spiritual one. Don't you claim the same thing? How is it different from the J.W.'s in that respect?

 

Why do you not take a third option that is common with many prophecies? Dual fulfillment. Whereby it is not only fulfilled at one point and also at another but the later emcompasses more fully what the first shows as an illistration of what is to come.

 

Tom (or anyone else), sincere question, is this the ONLY scripture that implies ONLY two 'comings' of Christ?

 

I believe scripture is clear there is the new birth "spiritual" AND a future physical resurrection. We shall be changed "future"...corruptible must put on incorruption. Jesus was physically raised from the dead in an incorruptible glorified body "the first fruits" from the dead. 1 John says we shall one day be like Him and shall see Him as He is.

 

........shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9:28

I suggest to you that 'them that wait for him, unto salvation' are referring specifically to those Hebrew Christians that were suffering persecution from their fellow Hebrew countrymen, and that the 'salvation' spoken of here is referring to 'deliverance' from this persecution, and that it is directly related to such passages as, '.. How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (Rev 6:10), and to the the parable of Lu 18:1-7.

Tom, I'm convinced that these two [only] comings apply to physical Israel [only], just as the prophet John the Baptist told the Jews of the 'two baptisms' of Mt 3; some of them would be baptized of the Spirit [Pentecost and thereafter], others would be baptized with fire [the wrath of A.D. 66-70]. I personally still look for the coming of Christ of 1 Cor 15:23-24, which I believe will happen when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, or there abouts. I also expect a general incoming of the Jews to Christ prior to the coming of 1 Cor 15.

Some excerpts from Alfred Edersheim, 'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', Book 3, Chapter 27 [emphasis mine]:

“......'Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come.'..... The expectation of the Coming of 'the Son of Man' was grounded on a prophecy of Daniel, [ Dan. vii. 13.] in which that Advent, or rather manifestation, was associated with judgment...... the enmity which the disciples, as the true Israel, would have to encounter from Israel after the flesh. They would be handed over to the various Sanhedrin.....and visited with such punishments as these tribunals had power to inflict.....It is of the greatest importance to keep in view that, at whatever period of Christ's Ministry this prediction and promise were spoken, and whether only once or oftener, they refer exclusively to a Jewish state of things. The persecutions are exclusively Jewish.....The reference, then, is to that period of Jewish persecution and of Apostolic preaching in the cities of Israel, which is bounded by the destruction of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the 'coming of the Son of Man,' and the 'end' here spoken of, must also have the same application. It was, as we have seen, according to Dan. vii. 13, a coming in judgment. To the Jewish persecuting authorities, who had rejected the Christ, in order, as they imagined, to save their City and Temple from the Romans, [a St. John xi. 48.] and to whom Christ had testified that He would come again, this judgment on their city and state, this destruction of their polity, was 'the Coming of the Son of Man' in judgment, and the only coming which the Jews, as a state, could expect, the only one meet for them, even as, to them who look for Him, He will appear a second time, without sin unto salvation.....To the Jews, who so rejected the first visible appearance of Christ as their King, the second appearance would be invisible but real; the sign which they had asked would be given them, but as a sign of judgment, and His Coming would be in judgment. Thus would His authority be vindicated, and He appear, not, indeed, visibly but really, as what He had claimed to be. That this was to be the manner and object of His Coming to Israel, was clearly set forth to the disciples in the Parable of the Unthankful Husbandmen. [c St. Matt. Xxi. 33-46, and the parallels.] The coming of the Lord of the vineyard would be the destruction of the wicked husbandmen. And to render misunderstanding impossible, the explanation is immediately added, that the Kingdom of God was to be taken from them, and given to those who would bring forth the fruits thereof. Assuredly, this could not, even in the view of the disciples, which may have been formed on the Jewish model, have applied to the Coming of Christ at the end of the present AEon dispensation."

Consider what this first Church of Christ suffered at the hands of their fellow countrymen:

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great conflict of sufferings; partly, being made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, becoming partakers with them that were so used. For ye both had compassion on them that were in bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions, knowing that ye have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one. Cast not away therefore your boldness, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise. For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10:32-37

 

I do not believe the coming of Christ that is foretold in 1 Cor 15:23-24 has happened yet.

 

I'm a Southern Baptist and full Preterist

I'm a proud Southern Baptist and a full preterist myself.

I grew up in a dispensational church, but if you are simply seeking the truth and not trying to defend a particular view then preterism is the position that is endorsed by the apostles and that works for me.

If you believe the bible is inerrant, as I do, then since the apostles clearly wrote that Christ would return in their generation either they have to be right and he returned or else they are wrong and he didn't return which means they were not inspired writers after all and the bible is not inerrant. If they were wrong about that then what else where they wrong about--all Christian teachings are suspect.

It just means we have been looking for the wrong kind of return. His return was in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD--the same as God's manifestations in the OT when he came in judgment against a country or empire.

Preterism is the only view of eschatology that ties everything together in a natural way. You don't have to ignore such statements as John would live to see Christ's return.

Regards,

Logos1

 

Our glorified bodies spirtual not physical

1 Corinthians 15:50 tells us that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Therefore it seems straight forward that our glorified body is spiritual in nature. John 18:36 Jesus says his kingdom is not of this World. We don't seem to have any basis to think we will have physical bodies or even need them.

Those who cling to the notion of a physical body point to Jesus having a physical body, but this a very arrogant assumption on our part to think we mortals will get the same body in every way that a member of the Trinity has--we are not Gods and don't need to do the same work that Christ needed to do. His work on earth wasn't finished so when he came back to earth he took on a physical body. We don't need to come back to the earth and finish any work. Our place will be in heaven and since flesh and blood can't enter heaven we can safely state that our glorified body will be spiritual in nature.

I'm only too happy to let go of my physical body to get into heaven. Dust to dust--I'm moving on to better things! Gen 3:19 ...for you are dust and to dust you shall return.

 

On another thread you inferred that the words "some standing here" implied the 70 A.D. destruction as the fulfillment of Matthew 24:30-31 in the Olivet Discourse. I believe that comment had to do with mount of transfiguration as interpreted by Peter in 2 Pet. 1:16-18 rather than a fulfillment of Matthew 24:29-31.

I do not believe that either Daniel 9:26 or Matthew 24:29-31 have their FULL fulfillment with A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem but are yet future at the end of this age.

 

If the "Prince" referred to the "Messiah" then the natural thing would simply be to repeat the term "Messiah" instead of introducing a new term that has to do with another event. They rejected the Messiah and the cutting off signified that and so they were not His people or claimed him as their King much less "Prince." Titus was the actual "Prince" of the Roman Emperor and it was actually his people that actually destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.

Your interpretation is forced and unnatural while the common interpretation fits like a glove. So the future application beyond A.D. 70 is demanded for fulfillment of this prophecy and Matthew 24:29-31.