1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Any full preterists?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by RIDER, Mar 30, 2004.

  1. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    38,736
    Likes Received:
    978
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you for admitting that your side does not take everything in the Bible to be literal. [​IMG]
     
  2. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Yes, we disagree when the completion takes/took place. I put it in thier generation.

    I assume you mean those living between 30-70AD. Were they completely redeemed? I would say no.


    I would not argue that, the final stage was His parousia.

    I will do a separate post on this.

    Yes, they were still waiting tor the return at the writing of the NT.


    I do not render either the OT or NT irrelevant. It is you who said the NT is irrelevant if the prophecies have been fulfilled. If you believe that then you must also now believe much of the OT is irrelevant.


    The "last days" were the last days of the Old Covenant, the Jewish Age. I believe the Jews thought some things visibly changed, especially as they saw their city and Temple burning to the ground.

    Who are the wicked Jesus is threatening? The Ming Dynasty or the Mayians in Mexico? No this was meant for the disobediant Jewish nation. It was all about them. Matt 23.

    Carfull how you define "earth" and "world". see Luke 2:1.

    No, but God created a world capable of sin. Therefore not perfect.


    Healing is a countinual process.

    What were her punishments that caused her weeping and mourning?

    "Audience Relevance", who is the some one you refer to? The one it refers to is the one to whom the letter is written. So yes a 21st century , western/greek mind would take tear literally. But how would a 1st century eastern/asian Jew interpret it? The OT is full of this style of writing.

    Mal 4: 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come.
    6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

    Now lets see what Jesus says:

    Matt 17
    10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?
    11 And he answered and said, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things:
    12 but I say into you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.
    13 Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

    The disciples ask why did the prophets say Elijah must come first. Then Jesus answers them saying yes Elijah must come first, then says: 12 but I say into you, that Elijah is come already

    It is at this point(vs 13)that they realize John was the Elijah as prophecy. It was a spiritual fulfillment not a physical as they had anticipated.

    The Elijah of Malachi has come already.

    Notice verse 6 of Mal 4: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

    It is John who will fulfill this very prophecy:

    Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
    16 And many of the children of Israel shall be turn unto the Lord their God.
    17 And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.

    For the same reason people do today. However not all did. Not to mention they were looking for an earthly King and Kingdom. Much like some today.

    How can you say definitely no to Christ being a type. According to your dualistic approach it is possible. Or is it limited to only certain prophecies?

    Nothing could be truer!

    Which things in Revelation are literal that you say are not symbolic anywhere else? Mark on the forehead or hand? 1000 ? Almost everything in Revelation is symbolic, O.T. imagery.

    First, do you consider New Heaven and Earth of Rev 21 to be literal? If so what about Is.65:17 literal also?
    To me eternity is living on the spiritual side of the New Covenant, in a different realm, ruling and reigning with Christ forever. Scripture seems to indicate the world continues on and His Kingdom continues to increase. I doubt it can be described with our limited ability to understand. Actually I find no view that really describes what eternity is like.
     
  3. eschatologist

    eschatologist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric B

    You said of Titus 2:13("the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ") that "This sounds like more than a symbolic 'coming' in the leadership of the Church." I say this sounds more like Matthew 16:27,28; 24:30; 26:64. In all these accounts Jesus speaks about a glorious coming. Furthermore they also all have 'imminent' connotations. Although His coming was symbolic, it was also real. It was realized in Him being behind the Roman armies as He judged and punished those unbelieving and wicked Jews, as He had promised that He would. This was exactly how God had punished the Jews and other nations in the old covenant when He sent the Assyrians and Babylonians to destroy and judge them. In His prophesy concerning Egypt He said: "See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud"(Is.19:1). Do you believe this to be 'literal'? Was the Lord seen 'riding' on a cloud like some surfer riding a wave to be seen by all, or is this in fact 'symbolic'? And if this is symbolic then why not the cloud coming events in the New Testament? If you believe that the Old Testament accounts are 'symbolic' and the New Testament examples are 'literal', then I guess you want your cake and eat it to?

    Second, you implied that the old Mosaic system(covenant) had passed with the death and resurrection of Christ. Have you not read the scriptures from Hebrews that I provided for you earlier? if not then please read Hebrews 8:13; 9:8; 10:9 and explain these to me. These are but some of the scriptures that imply that the old covenant was still intact but was to be soon removed. If you can not except the Hebrew writer as inspired and truthful, what else in the Bible would you disbelieve?

    Latter you said, of your dualism theology on scripture, that "You have not proven it is not both, so why knock that?" Well I say that you have not proven that dualism is correct, so why except it? Sounds more like traditions of man to me! If it is true, you should be able to prove it. If there are no signs by God in His word that exemplify this theory, then what do I have to prove? God's word proves itself to be true!
     
  4. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'll have to continue with more of your comments tomorrow. But for now, I will address: (for this is where it all hinges anyway):
    So where do you get this from? Do you simply assume there is an "eternity" for us, because it is a nice thing to believe in? Is this an admission that the scripture is totally silent on it because it is so hard to comprehend?

    You ask me to prove dualism. That is the proof. Because all of the Biblical teaching on eternity your system ascribes on earth, leaving absolutely NOTHING!

    That antitypical fulfillments are greater. That's why they're literal, and forshadowed by those symbolic OT statements. yes, I beleive "mark" in both cases is symbolic. But something like 1000 years is literal, unless you can find symbolic use of it, and even then, it may be as I said, a literal antetype of the earlier symbolic type. This is based on how it's used in the context. In your system, God punished a bunch of wicked Jews, yet million more continued in wickedness. What did that really accomplish? God says He is going to put away sin for good, not just patch up a few things, just to have it continue, while this world of sin goes on forever. What kind of "healing" is that? (So yes, he is one day going to judge the Mayans and Mings. They are people made in His image, in His world, who sin, aren't they?) Meanwhile eternity is only a speculation that has no clear support.
    I'll have to study the first verse more, bu the latter two make it look like this has passed already. The first, actually, looks like it is saying the the old covenant has passed already, and it's the new one that is now getting old and shall pass as well. But I'll have to examine that more.
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    No? Well what does this mean? Were they still lost and in their sins? What change took place in AD70? OK, the Temple was destroyed, ending that system for good (though I still say it was officially ended when the veil was torn), but as far as the Christians are concerned, what change took place, especially since this "change" would fulfill all the promises of resurrection; the dead in Christ shall rise first, receiving new bodies replacing these decaying ones, seeing God face to face (see also Rev.22:3), instead of in part, ruling with Christ, judging the angels, etc.? I do not hear of anything particular happening in the Church in AD70; not even some great revival or missionary advance. Instead, things continued to get worse and worse, with more apostasy coming in. In a few centuries, we were in the depths of the "Dark Ages".
    Unless, of course, you hold the post-apostolic Church to have been perfect, being the actual Kingdom and all. So this is I guess how all the doctrinal and practice changes were justified, even though they weren't in the Bible. Those not-quite-yet-redeemed Christians from the apostolic age only had an incomplete revelation, but after AD70, then the "fulness of the Gospel" was proclaimed by the perfected saints. Whatever they said, God said. They were not fallible, sinful men, but glorified saints! :eek:
    I can see now how preterism is useful for justifying the RC Church that grew out of the post-apostolic Church. But one of you is Southern Baptist, and the other Church of Christ. Don't these two groups believe the church of the Dark Ages was false?
    But you said redemption was not in stages. You either are or aren't.
    No, because the OT still has prophecies on the future Kingdom. These were what gve the Christians hope, in the face of the trials they were facing. According to you, the drstruction of the Temple was their hope, even though it didn't change a single circumstance for the Church.
    But as I have said, these "last days' were significant for the Christians too. What did they see changed? Even with the Jews, those away from Jerusalem had moved into the synagogue anyway, and things continued the same for them up until the present.
    You have to definie it in context. The Romans could onl tax those under their jurisdiction. But God is judge of the whole earth, isn't He? Unless the Bible is only for the Jews and Christians, and I guess, the gods of the other nations of the earth will take care of them.
    Creating capable of sin, is not the same as leaving it in sin forever. The capability to sin was aprt of God's whole plan, which has an end or final fruition. In your system, the mockers of 2 Peter, weren't really that far off after all; "all things continue as they have since Creation". If these were just unrepentant Jews, and they happened to escape AD70, then perhaps they were right.

    Speaking of this passage, the fiery end of the age is made the antitypical counterpart of Noah's flood, "whereby the world, which then was became overflowed with water and perished". Peter uses one to illustrate the reality of the other, and we see the same "world" is involved. So is the flood symbolic, then? Maybe the destruction of the Cainites' temple or something? [​IMG] This is another thing that forces a literal future fulfillment.
    Captivity and the physical trials that went with this. Christians continued to face the same things before and after AD70, and still do taody. I guess it's easier to believe we are now in the new heaven and new earth in the cozy Christian West. But not all have it like this.
    It has nothing to do with "Western Greek". The Bible was written to all, and when taken in context, any reader can understand whether something is symbolic or literal. The only person who could read "and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and, and there shall be no more death; neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away" and say this is just the destruction of the Temple, and yes, death, sorrow and pain do actually continue (and in fact, would get worse), but it doesn't matter to the Christians now; is someone who approaches it with a preconception of preterism. The first century readers would see a lot of this as fulfillment, but they certainly wouldn't see the post AD70 world as the real Kingdom, and would realize that there is a future antitype. pseudo-Barnabas in the 2nd Century recognized a future literal millennium.
    Still, the passage mentions two [more] comings. He has come, and yet still shall come. This speaks of duality. John started the work that the final Elijah shall finish. It was yet incomplete.
    </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 16 And many of the children of Israel shall be turn unto the Lord their God.
    17 And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.
    quote:

    [ April 27, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
     
  6. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    It was a spiritual happening. You won't read about it in history books. This is when the thessolonians were "changed in the twinkeling of an eye". This is when the tabernacle of God came to be with men. (Rev 21:3) This is when the New Heaven and New Earth were ushered in. The end of Rev 20 through Rev 21:5 describe the ending of the Old Covenant, the resurrection and judgement, and then the ushering in of the New Covenant.

    The true church is positionally perfect. Is it your belief the Kingdom has not come?

    I dont consider the RCC to be the "church" at any period of time.

    Ours is not in stages. When one is regenerated he is regenerated. You become alive, not partially alive.

    Do you acknowledge that the "last days" were strictly a 1st century reference?

    They were asking where the promise of His coming was. Why would they ask that? Why would they assume they would live to see it? They thought they would live to see it because the apostles taught that. They understood Jesus said His coming and Kingdom were near.
    No they weren't that far off. They just didn't have faith and were just "mockers" true to the word.

    There is no separation from God in the New Covenant.


    Here is our difference. It was not written to all. It was written to a certain people at a certain time. Romans was written to mostly Jews living in Rome, not to us in the 21st century. We can use what was written and apply it to our lives, but the first application is to the original receipient. The Bible was written FOR us but not TO us.

    Only if interpreted through the eyes and understanding of the those to whom it was written to. This is what leads to mis-interpretation in my opinion.

    Read the language of Is. 13 and compare it to the Matt 24. 1st century jews would understand, 21st century americans might not.

    If they were looking for a physical Kingdom then they would not see the Kingdom Jesus talked about, because His came "without observation:.

    You have completely lost me on that interpretation. This is, in context, is speaking of John's birth. His speaks of what he will do in his life. What things that were predicted of Elijah did John not fulfill?

    Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
    16 And many of the children of Israel shall be turn unto the Lord their God.
    17 And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.
     
  7. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    OK, the end of my last post got cut off when I edited, and replaced with that HTML code; I don't know why it does that sometimes :mad: )

    I had continued, that [in contrast to "turning the hearts to the Fathers", etc] while some Israelites may have listened to John and believed in Christ, still, overall, the final analysis of the Jews' reception of both John and Christ, is one of rejection. Paul, in Romans and elsewhere, speaks of Israel being hardened, and in general, rejecting Christ. Paul pictures the final redemption of Israel as future, and no, there was no mass conversion of Jews in AD70 either. This in no way fulfills what was said about the final Elijah, but is practically the opposite. Face it, it was incomplete!
    John is considered "Elijah", because he started the work prophesied, by heralding the first coming of the Messiah. Since, as we both agree, there would be a second, final coming, then there would need to be a final Elijah as well. But there is no such Elijah leading up to AD70. So it is yet future. All the prophecies are clearly shown to be in pluralistic types with a final future fulfillment.

    Also, I had addressed more:
    Because of a couple of things. First, in Isaiah, we see God working through invisible, unexplained events, causing Egypt to turn against one another, and by this are they brought dow. Then, later, they are turned over to "cruel lords" in v.6. Since it was God directly, and God was assumed by most to be "up in the sky", then He could be seen as having come (invisibly) "in the clouds" when this miraculous judgment suddenly fell on Egypt. In Matt. Christ specifically speaks of coming "with His saints and holy angels". Do you really believe that He would describe pagan Romans as His "saints" and "holy angels"? That is quite a stretch. Or did Christians accompany the Romans in the destruction of the Temple? that would be a bigger stretch, and the Romans persecuted the christians along with the Jews! Once again, certain details must be literal, or it wouldn't make sense.

    I had also asked is the Lake of Fire the destruction of the Temple too? Is "tormented for ever and ever" symbolic too? Is Satan really in this place/state [if it is such] today?

    All of this seems like modern day Sadduceeism: "neither angel, nor resurrection from the daed"
     
  8. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    And with all the focus they are given in the whole NT (as our hope, etc), it must be more than some invisible "passing of covenants", that once again, had no effect on anything or anyone. What really is the point of it? Once again, "If only in this life we have hope, we are the most pitiable of all men". And why would it hinge all on the physical destruction of the Temple, and not Christ's death or resurrection? Once again, the Temple became illegitimate and the covenants officially changed when the veil was torn. But you're making the physical destruction more significant than even the death and Resurrection! We do not see any such focus in the NT. We do not see any scriptures telling us that the destruction of the Temple is what we are waiting for. So how would they even know that this was "it"; the beginning of the new heaven and new earth? How would they sense this "resurrection"? In the twinking of an eye, they were "changed" into what? In fact, a Christian who may have been off somewhere and not even heard of the destruction (at least for a while) wouldn't know that anything happened! Clearly, this is a retrospective interpretation force-fitted onto the prophecy.
    So ours is not in stages, but theirs (between AD30 and 70) was? (i.e. Christ was already crucified, saying "IT IS FINISHED!", but the Christians who the NT was written to wouldn't be completely redeemed until the destruction of the Temple; thus final redemption is still spoken of as future?) I do not see this in there. In the NT teaching, they also were "alive, not partially alive". Spiritual death was finally abolished, but the whole theme of the NT is that physical death, "the last enemy" was what still needed to be resolved. Paul speaks of "mortality" in 1 Cor. 15, so "death, where is thy sting" is talking about physical death being abolished, not just spiritual death. This is what was yet future, not the completion of their spiritual life.
    Yes, but what that meant was that this was the final dispensation. We get hung up on "days", but remember, God does not view time like we do. This is ironic, for you are chiding us for taking so many other things literally, but your whole system of eschatology hinges on taking this one word literally, and then forcing the rest of the prophecy into AD70.
    Yeah, everyone thought they would live to see it. But according to you, there was nothing to even "see". God had not fully revealed the time, but they knew it could be any time; "at an hour when you think not" (once again, what significance would this warning have to an unbelieving Jew who happened to escape AD70?). I find it interesting that you admit that the mocker was right. "All things do [will] continue as they did since creation". This is what the unbelievers all believe today, but it is not what the Bible promises us.
    We still cannot actually see Him, as Adam originally did.
    But in your view, it is not even really FOR us either, as all of the promises have been fulfilled. So we can apply how it tells believers to live, and hope for an undefined "eternity", which I still do not see any room left for in your interpretation, but otherwise, much of it can be chucked aside. (once again, even the OT has plenty prophecies that we believe are still future).
    OK, Is.13 uses a lot of the language we see in later prophecy, and yes, I can admit that they can be symbolic of temporal total destruction. But this is talking about judgment of a single pagan nation, and it tells us so. The later prophecies typically describe the destruction of Jerusalem, but when taken in context with everything else, including resurrections, final judgment, and other clear language, they must point to a real, antitypical fulfillment of God's promise to end all sin and suffering, and completely restore what was originally lost.
    On one hand, you keep pointing to "what the 1st century Jews would understand", but on the other hand, we see that that was precisely part of the problem in their rejection of Christ. They understood one coming, in which He would immediately take over the world. But what they didn't realize, was that Christ had to first come and die to pay for the sins of man, and then rise again and go back to the Father. When He didn't take over, then they became disillusioned, and became frightful that all of his talk of being the true King and taking over would only get them in trouble with the Romans if He weren't actually going to do anything, and His divine claims (which they thought blasphemous) would bring a curse on them. So then, all they did was find fault with him and reject him. Meanwhile, believers would have a "deposit" on the promise, with the Spirit in our hearts, and the invisible typical "Kingdom" of believers, (as they are under the King). This would not be the final "Kingdom", because it only comprised of believers (relatively few in number compared to the whole world), rather than the whole earth.. This came "without observation", but the time would come when God would finally make good on His promise to take over and judge the whole earth. (and following this statement in Luke, we see another paralleling of this with the Noah story, also worldwide. This is what forces "earth" or "world" to be literal, even though it was sometimes used figuratively).
    So it is obvious that they didn't understand the prohecies. Likewise, those who did accept Him, might apply everything to their own lifetime. It could have been, but from the details of the prohecies, there would still have to be a greater fulfillment.

    [ April 28, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
     
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Who is the Israel of God?

    What was Elijah to do?

    Mal 4: 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come.6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

    What was John to do?

    16 And many of the children of Israel shall be turn unto the Lord their God.
    17 And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him

    Did John fail to do what Luke records?

    But there was. You must have a future Elijah, or your system begins to unravel. What did John fail to do that Elijah was to do?

    All? Or just the ones that fit a futurist system? Can I also apply pluralistic types to all prophecies?

    I imagine if we lived under the Old Covenant (instrument of death) it would have a life-changing effect on our lives to enter into the New Covenant. You seem to indicate it was no big deal.

    Are we still looking forward to the "hope" in the next world?

    Prov 13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick; But when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.

    Not the destruction, that was more of a sign of His parousia. Perhaps I have been a little confusing about this point.

    Luke 21:20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.21 Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein.22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.23 Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.25 And there shall be signs in sun and moon and stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, in perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the billows;26 men fainting for fear, and for expectation of the things which are coming on the world: for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.28 But when these things begin to come to pass , look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh .

    When one is regenerated, what do they feel? What did you feel when you were brought from death unto life? So you tell me how did they feel when the veil ripped, since you believe that is when the New Covenant began? How did they know that was "it"?

    And niether would they know the veil ripped.

    Actually until His parousia.

    I believe it speaks of Spiritual.

    I Cor 15:20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep.
    21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
    22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
    23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming.
    24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.
    25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
    26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.

    2Tim 1:10 but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death , and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

    John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life .25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.

    I Cor. 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed,
    52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed .53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality , then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.55 O death, where is thy victory ? O death, where is thy sting?56 The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: 57 but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    The Sting of Death was sin, and the power of sin was the Law. The sting of death was done away with at the end of the Old Covenant.

    Says who? Can you provide scripture? I can show OT scripture that shows all the things that would happen in the "last days".

    Correct, but when He chooses to communicate "time" to His creation, He is more than capable of conveying it in a manner in which we can understand. Can't He? Or is it suppose to be a puzzle?

    I try not to chide, if I have done so my apologies. I was once was a full Dispy so I understand your concern of the Preterist position.
     
  10. eschatologist

    eschatologist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish you could ask the 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 Jews who were slaughtered and the hundreds of thousands who were sold as slaves if the outcome of Jesus' return in judgment upon them was not noticable!

    The reason that the first century transition was not instantaneous and was accomplished over a period of 40 years(a highly symbolic number to the Jews) was that, as in accordance with Jewish Law, the High Priest(in this case Jesus) had to appear before the Father in the Holy of Holies as an acceptable sacrifice(which He was), and then reappear from the Holy of Holies to show Himself as having been accepted and having atonement for their sins. This is what Jesus did! This transitional time period also gave His disciples time to go to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles to spread the gospel, although they would not finish before He returned(Mat.10:23).

    Yes I know it is hard for you to understand: The bible was written to us; It was written to them, but it applies to us and is for our understanding. It basically breaks down to one of two catogories:
    1) Some things applied only to them
    2) Some things apply to them and us

    Yet they were the original audience; we are beneficiaries. I guess you find offense in us (preterists) having a faith once and for all delivered to the saints(Jude 3)? That is my promise and hope. I do not have to wait for Jesus to complete something He apparently failed to complete under your view!
     
  11. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    I would not agree with that. However you seem to acknowledge you cannot take everything literally. Our positions would disagree on what is literal and what is figurative/metaphoric. It seems the "when are these things to happen" are clearly to be taken literally, its the "how these things are to happen" I believe to be more of a spiritual nature.

    Yes, but that all changed at the Parousia. But things did not continue when as they were after the Destruction,dispersion of the Jews, and the New Covenant.

    Did Adam actually see Him? I don't know. I thought no one had seen the the face of God.

    Much of the NT is just telling History, do you chuck it? What is your description of eternity?

    Very little of the OT contain still future prophecies from your point of view. Did you rip out the pages that don't concern your future?

    As does the Olivet Discourse.

    I believe Dan. 12 describes what happens in the last days. And to whom it happens.


    Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    I believe this is speaking of the judgement on Jerusalem and her wicked people. Also you have the resurrection and judgement.

    4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

    Daniel is told to seal his book up, yet John is told the opposite:

    Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand .

    Now, if time is meaningless, why was Daniel to seal and John not to?

    6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

    When shall these things be fulfilled?

    7Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

    Again Daniel is told to seal them up:

    9And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

    Yet John is told not to seal his, because the time is near.

    Then He tells Daniel what will happen to him at that time.

    13"But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

    All those who were His elect did understand. But Calvinism is for another thread. I agree though that they did understand some things and not others, at least not immediately.

    Consider the following:

    John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also .4 And whither I go, ye know the way.5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way?

    I believe verse 3 does not speak of Heaven but a spiritual realm in which we, in part, now live. Clearly Thomas doesn't understand, He didn't even think He was leaving, at least physically.

    19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

    So much for a visible return. How long is no more? Yet He tells the disciples they will see Him. What will happen that day they see Him?

    20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you .

    Is that not a true statement today? Are we in Christ? Is Christ in us? Did that not happen at the New Covenant?

    Now, here is where it gets interesting.

    22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

    Read verse 19 again.
    Judas understood He would not come physically but would "manifest" Himself to them.

    So how will Jesus manifest Himself to them?

    23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him .

    Does God and Christ not abode with His people now? That was how He would manifest Himself to them. Was that not a New Covenant event? Why didn't Jesus say you will see me in the air in clouds?

    Original Word : parousiða
    Transliterated Word: Parousia
    Definition: 1. presence
    2.the coming, arrival, advent


    Now consider these verses, using Youngs Literal Translation:

    MT 24:3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what `is' the sign of thy presence , and of the full end of the age?'

    MT 24:27 for as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear unto the west, so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man;

    MT 24:37 and as the days of Noah -- so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man;

    MT 24:39 and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man.


    Interesting how using presence instead of coming can change the perception and nature of His parousia.
     
  12. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    No, he did not complete what Luke said, unless you now switch to the "spiritual" definition of Israel, which you seem to be doing. But if all of these prophecies concern physical Israel, as you have been saying, then I don't see how you can just switch it when it is convenient like that.
    It was not that much different from anything else they had been through as a people. They had had the Temple destroyed before, and were in captivity many times before. The prohecies spoke of Christ bringing a total change to the world order, not just giving them just another judgment like all those before. As I said before, those away from Jerusalem had moved into the synagogue anyway, and things continued the same for them up until the present. You may argue that this time, they never rebuilt the Temple, but they are trying. Another thing about this system of prophecy is that it renders all that is going on today in the world insignificant. One of the biggest proofs of the Bible has been the survival of Israel as a people, and the fact that there is constantly so much going on over there. IF Israel had been totally wiped out as a people, then you would have a big argument, and I think that would have been necessary to come anywhere close to fufilling the pictures of "judgment" we
    see in the prophecies. And what and when was there any "resurrection" to judgment? In your system, it's almost like we're in Hell, but if you believe in Christ, then you're really in Heaven.
    Uh, yes. This is still a world of suffering and death, and being in Christ may help us put that in perspective, but this is certainly not Heaven.
    "look up"? For what? According to you, nothing happened in the physical realm. Also notice that the times of the Gentiles are not forever, but shall have a completion. This is another major reason why the prophecys was dual, with this as only the beginning and not the end of it all. Also, "distress of nations; not just Israel anymore. You still have not told us what Armageddon was, as well as many other things such as the "Falling away" that would lead to the man of sin, etc.
    A lot of people don't feel anything. It's by faith, not feeling, that we know that we have passed from death to life. But we are told this, rather than it being described in terms of great visible world-shaking events.
    Yeah, but I only claim that was the official changing of the Covenants. I don't claim that was the coming of Christ, and all the other graphic events described in the prophecies.
    Several things:
    First, resurrection. Christ was dead, and literally, physically rose again. Then as He roase, we are promised to rise again like Him. You seem to be claiming that just being converted is resurrection for us. But no such distinction is made the His is literal, and ours only "spiritual".
    Once again, taking His "coming" as 40 years later, were the believers (including Paul) still spiritually "dead" then? There are plenty of NT scriptures that contradict this.
    Christ's coming and "the end" are made distinct.
    "Abolished all rule and authority". This speaks of universal conditions. We still have wicked human rulers all over the earth, false leaders in churches and false religions, and it still appears that Satan and the other evil spirits are still ruling this world.
    Yes, we have spiritually passed from death to life. The fact that Jesus speaks of that fact in a present sense shows that this idea of them not actually gaining spiritual life until AD70 is wrong. But then there is spiritual death, and physical death. Both were the result of sin. The latter is totally ignored in your system, but is what is being addressed along with the former in 1 Cor., which once again, mentions "the dead" (sleep, meaning physical death), being "raised". Once again, the spiritual "life" we have now, is but the "deposit" for the future physical immortality, and "incorruption".
    We agree that "the last days" is the final dispensation of the old earth. We disagree as to when the old earth [will/has] end[ed]. So in my system too, all the things happen in the last days. They still are happening.
    Why would only that be literal, while so much else is not? The 1000 years is "time". And the rest of the times mentioned in the prophecy. It's your system that is more a puzzle. He could have conveyed in a way we would understand better that spiritual life in this world is "it", our blessed hope, rather than making it sound like a new earth.
    And I believe both when and how are dual. That way, everything is interpreted in the same manner, and it can explain both the first century events, plus ours today, as well as us still being in a world of sin and death.
    Adam, as well as everyone else back then, saw the Logos, which was the visible "presence" of God in the world. Of course, nobody saw God in His natural form. But we don't even see the logos anymore. Christ was the final appearance of the Logos on earth, but

    1 John 32 says that for the first time we shall be able to "see Him as He is". This speaks of actually seeing Him, not just some spiritual life we have now. Notice, "NOW we are the sons of God" (rather than us us gaining this spiritual state decades later)"...and yet it does not appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is". This is speaking of the Father, not just the coming of the Son. While in our Christian life, we are in the process of being made like Him, none of us are there. That is why AD70 cannot be "it".
    Plus, this whole thing calls into question the historic dating of the NT. John's epistles and Revelation are belived to have been written way after AD70, and through his disciple Polycarp, and then afterwards, Polycrates (who debated with Roman bishops -by then, beginning to be elevated in status- over Church practice), we have a direct link to the 2nd century. Your position falls unless you force everything to be before AD70.
    Chide" was a figure of speech, meaning saying we are wrong in something. No offense.
     
  13. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    All of the scriptures on the new heaven/new earth. What else is there in scripture on this?
    No. v.30 speaks of "all the tribes of the earth" It is not just Israel. V.31 says the elect shall be gathered from the four winds and one end of heaven to the other. This language signifies the entirety of the [known] world. And once again, v.37 compares it to the events of Noah. so all of this is speaking of worldwide catclysm.
    The same reason you would say one is told to seal it up and not the other. The time was not at hand. Though the time was officially "at hand" in the NT, that doesn't mean God wouldn't tarry for some reason. It was ready to happen; nothing else had to be accomplished for it to happen; but it would not necessarily happen right away.
    The power of the people has not been completely shattered; as Israel still did exist after AD70, in the synagogues to the present, and even became a nation again, eventually, and now look to rebuild the Temple. Once again, they would have hed to have been completely obliterated as a people for your system to be true.
    Your argument was how first century Jews would understand it (whether elect or not). But the problem is, they only understood in part.
    Life in this world is but a dim shadow of life in eternity.
    In the immediate context, the world did see Him no more. Especially not those liveng then. And He did manifest spiritually within believers' hearts through the Spirit. But elsewhere we are told that at one point every eye shall see Him.
    But parousia, as "spiritual presence" doesn't make sense in those passages likening it to Noah's flood, which speaks of literal worldwide events.
     
  14. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    But in your system, He didn't really reappear. His symbolically coming back, in an unseen event is no real "appearance" in the sense being described in the passage. Once again, how would they know? Scriptures speak of them already being saved, already being redeemed (escept fot the physical bosy with its decay and death), yet you claim this magical moment all of this would be fulfilled, but nobody would see anything but the destruction of a Temple that was already renedered obsolete by the glory departing, being destoryed before, and finally, the veil being torn.
    In fact, this system bears a lot in common with both the pre-trib rapture, which says basically the same thing (but at least you have the actual disappearance of the saints in that theory), as well as both the SDA and JW treatmenat of 1844 and 1914, respectively. Both started out as dates when people though Christ was coming bac. When they passed, then in order to save the significane of the date, they had to claim this "return" was spiritual, and Christ only did something in the Heavenly Temple.
    All fo what you describe is but a type of the future appearance of Christ.
    So the dabate is what is for us, what is for them, and what is for both. I believe much of it is actually for both.
    We are still in a world of sin and death. We are told that if we only have hope in THIS WORLD, we are pitiable. How can anyone possibly think that THIS is complete? "Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow, we die"? He didn't "Fail" in my system, He just did it in stages, and will complete it sometime. You must not understand, if you think I think is is a "failure" because it has not happened yet. But I do know this world is a failure (dead in sin, lost with sickness and suffering), and that our "promise and hope" is that it would not always be left like this, with us only having to die and then floating off to something apparently not even mentioned in the Bible.
    This is not the faith once delivered to the saints, as early on, people believed in a literal second coming, and making AD70 "it" must have been a retrospective interpretation. It was force fit, by taking only the typical fulfillments, and making them all there is. The people back then may have expected it to be, but then this world continuing as it has, has shown that this was still a type of a greater fulfillment of all things. they only saw in part. One day, it shall be revealed in full.
     
  15. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    First thing is to understand words.

    Greek word "gh" can be translated:

    country, earth, earthly, ground, land, soil

    Definition can be: a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

    examples:
    Rev 1:7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the EARTH will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

    Rev 11:6These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the EARTH with every plague, as often as they desire.

    Matt. 23:35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on EARTH, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

    Greek word: -oiÎkoumeÑnh

    translated: earth

    definitions:
    the inhabited earth
    the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians

    the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire

    the whole inhabited earth, the world

    the inhabitants of the earth, men

    examples:

    Mt 24:14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the WORLD for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

    Rm 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the EARTH, and their words unto the ends of the world.

    Keep these terms in mind when reading passages. I believe most of the time these words are used they have the meaning of the Roman Empire or the land of Judea.
     
  16. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    So John did not do what Luke said he was to do? That makes Luke's writings false.

    The prophecies were about physical Israel, however all the prophecies were not meant to be physical.

    Spiritualy, yes.

    Who are those people living in the land of Israel? Are the direct blood descendants of the 1st century Jews? Are the Ethiopian Jews the true descendants? How about the European Jews? Or maybe the Turkish Jews? In order for your view to hold true, the blood descendants of those 1st century jews must still be intact. Not only that but they must also be direct descendants of each tribe so they can make up the literal 144000. I do not believe the Jewish race exists today as it did in the 1st century.

    The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
    'The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (vol. 12, page 1054)

    Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
    "It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .
    "Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

    Encyclopedia Americana (1986)
    "Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 16, p. 71).

    Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
    "A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they five" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).
    Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism. In fact, one is defined a Jew by legal dispensation or coercion, with race playing no part at all:

    Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1970)
    "In 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert." (vol. 14, p. 214)

    H.G. Wells
    "There can be little doubt that the scattered Phoenicians in Spain and Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, speaking as they did a language closely akin to Hebrew and being deprived of their authentic political rights, became proselytes to Judaism. For phases of vigorous proselytism alternated with phases of exclusive jealousy in Jewish history. On one occasion the Idumeans, being conquered, were all forcibly made Jews. There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Thrkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples - mainly Semitic.... The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea" (The Outline of History, p. 505).


    Figure of speech.

    The Roman Empire was composed of nations.

    Heb. 12:26-28

    I don't know. What was going on during this time is something I'm still trying to grasp. I have more questions than answers at this time. But I don't let my ignorance get in the way of accepting what I believe to be the truth.

    I beleive this to be in the spiritual realm. This is where Satan loses his authority over the earth in a spiritual sense.

    Spiritual death yes, I'm not sure about physical death. I do not think Adam and Eve were created to live physically forever. They died in the garden that day. That indicates spiritual, physical is just assumed.

    So the "last days" is the church age in your view. Therefore to give a sermon saying we are living in the "last days" is just stating the obvious.

    Why would everything else be literal and time-statements not?

    The 1000 years is mentioned in a vision surrounded by symbolic terms. But if the 1000 years is literal then why isn't the "last hour" literal in I John 2:18?

    He could have conveyed a lot of things much clearer, but who are we to question God?

    This was one of my concerns, if just Revelation was written after AD70 then the preterist position fails. However I find just the opposite to be true as far as when Revelation was written. Their is an excellent book by Kenneth Gentry, " Before Jerusalem Fell" that looks at the internal and external evidence of the early and late dates.


    Since I see the New Heavens and Earth as the New Covenant, those don't help me out much. But since you are a dualist they describe both to you, correct?


    "tribes of the earth" is a term very much used for Israel. Greek for "earth" is gh.

    Verse 37 says nothing about a worldwide catclysm.

    Heb. 10:37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry

    The power was their Temple

    So there seems to be a contradiction. Will they see Him or not? Rev. says every eye shall see Him, even thosed who pierced Him. Who pierced Him. Perhaps seeing is understanding. Romans 11:8
     
  17. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    So it could be either or. Still, there is no evidence all the tribes of the Roman Empire mourned, or even all the tribes of Judea. They rejected Him, many perished, but most went on, and continued to built their rabbinic religion which wrote Him off as a false Messiah who died for his own sin.
    Israel is called "the twelve tribes", but never "the tribes of the earth". Even when they were "scattered abroad" (James 1:1) There was always a distinction between "Israel" and "the earth" or "nations" (goyim) meaning everyone else, (granted, whether the whole world, or just all the people of a particular region).
    No more false than any other prohecy that was fulfilled in stages. Like the Messiah, who had to come to die first, before fulfilling anything else the Messiah was to do. So John started it (by paving the way for the first coming of the Messiah), and the last Elijah will finish it. Once again, the whole plan called for Israel as a whole rejecting the message of John, as well as Christ. That is what we see in the rest of the NT. And no, the Church does not fulfil that for Israel. The Church may be, spiritually, "Israel", but this prophecy was aimed specifically at the physical nation, who had received the prophecy in the first place. So even if it was fulfilled in the church, then by your standard, Luke would be just as false. In both views, it is fulfilled in a different way than people expected.
    Yes, the Jews have spread out, and mixed a lot, but still, most of them have descended from the 1st Century Jews. Once again, they have never been wiped out as a people (what you seem to be insinuating is that they were wiped out, and then converts to the religion, in effect, recreated the "nation". But no historian believes any such thing, not even the ones you cite here. Spread out and thinned out, yes, Eradicated, no). I am not arguing "race" (thyue subject of those quotes), or even that the modern "nation" is legitimate before God. But most do descend through some strain, from those in the first century. Else, we would have heard of them at one point no longer existing. Instead, all throughout Church history, we see them mentioned and interacted with.
    But the discussion is about regeneration. The passage you are giving now is about judgment. I know you believe that this spiritual "judgment" is the same as completion of Christians' "regeneration", but this assumes, rather than proves your view.
    But I have to hand it to you; it just now occurred to me, in the eternal security debate, your view could reconcile all the scriptures about "falling away". There would be no eternal security until full regeneration, which was yet future. So people reading the epistles were still in danger of falling away. But that is debatable, and more suitable for a separate debate elsewhere.
    But the fact that is is such a gray uncertainty may be a sign that the whole premise is flawed.
    More on this next post, where I deal more with "parousia".
    Perhaps you mean in a "legal" sense? But even then, both legally and spiritually, Satan rules/owns many, if not most people and human systems. Christ has gained the legal right to take it back, but has not done so yet. Unless you believe the world is the eternal lake of fire, with the Church as "the City". Only in a very loose spiritual sense. One day, it will be made real.
    Spiritual was the immediate meaning, but physical was apart of the "curse" that took effect later. It's this "curse" that will be removed in the new earth. If Adam (man) was only meant to live physically for a while, then that once again raises the question of what is after death. What scriptures teach about this, since all the ones we are familiar with are taken to describe spiritual life now?
    Everything else is not literal. It depends on the context, and cross references. Some thing are not defined any other way, and some things have details that would be meaningless if not taken literally. In your system, when did the 1000 years begin and end, how/when was Satan bound, released, and then cast in the lake of fire for good surrounding this period of time? When were saints resurrected, and then, all the dead, great and small" resurrected and judged? (still waiting for Armageddon and the falling away). Was all of this in AD 70 too?
    Obviously, it is not literal. Even in your view, Christ's parousia was not within an hour after John wrote the book.
    You're the one who first asked why He would not convey something clearer ("easier to understand")!
    The New Heavens/earth is not dual, but "Kingdom" is. Still, the question once again, what else in scripture does teach on eternity, since all of them in your view do refer to the New Covenant?
    But Noah's flood WAS a worldwide cataclysm, and this is what it was being compared to; in fact, presented as an antitype of!
    This is taken from Hab. 2:3, which says "though it tarry, wait for it, because it will surely come, it will not tarry..." The emphasis seems to be on "surely come", and even though it may actually tarry, don't think that means it is not coming. So this again would point to God's timing. It could [have] happen[ed] in anyone's lifetimes, from theirs to ours.
    What proof do you have of that. I know, it could be, but then, in the dispensational system, they will rebuild in the furute anyway. Once again, in history, they had been in the synagogue and lived apart from the Temple anyway, and did survive as a religious system, and even if the people were mixed, they were still not completely crushed.
    In the resurrection, they will see Him. I don't know, but while "see" could mean "understand", use of a term like "eye" seems to fix it as literal. Once again, context.

    [ April 30, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
     
  18. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thinking back on yesterday's discussion of "parousia" with the 40 years, and High Priest, it was quite an impressive sequence, but it fails on several counts.
    40 may be a significant number to Israel, but for one thing, it is widely accepted that Christ died, rose again and ascended in AD33. That would be 37 years to AD70. So this theory would have to force the Crucifixion/Resurrection/Ascension to be definitely AD30, and while it possibly could have been, still, there is no real evidence for that. Next, where does it say it would take 40 years for the Father to accept Christ's sacrifice? In John, we see He first appears to Mary Magdalene, and tells her not to touch Him, because He has not yet ascended to the Father. (20:17) He says "go to my brethren and say to them [that] I ascend to My Father...". In other words, while she was going to tell them, this is what He would be doing. That evening, He begins to appear to them. So He ascended to be accepted by the Father right away, and returned. It would would not take 40 years. (8 days later, he has Thomas touch Him, showing that He had been accepted, at least by then).
    Continuing in Acts, we are told that after the Passion, he had been there for 40 days.(1:3) There's your significant number 40! Then, right before He ascends for good, they ask "Lord, will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?"(v.6) He does not tell them, "No, never. Israel is finished, and when Jerusalem is destroyed, that is it for them forever. The Church is the only 'Israel', now". What He tells them is "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in His own power. But ye shall receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and ye will be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth". So He is acknowledging that the Kingdon would be restored to Israel (literally, since that is what they were asking about), but that the time is not their concern. This kind of hints at it being far off. Once again, a crucial flaw of preterism is that it makes all the everlasting judgment just the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, but if that were true, then Jerusalem would be "trampled under foot by the gentiles" forever. But in Rev. we see that these "times of the Gentiles" do have an end.
    Then, right after He is ascended, the angels tell them, "Ye men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into Heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen Him go into Heaven. They just saw Him literally ascend, so He must then literally descend. What the angels were telling them was not to stand there waiting for it. It would happen in its due time, and meanwhile, they had the work commanded them to carry out.
    As for giving them time to go to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles to spread the gospel, and not finishing before He returned(Mat.10:23); All this could mean is that they would not complete the evangelism of the Jews. If you take the destruction and dispersion into account, then that would prevent them from having gone through all of the cities (—until the future fulfillment). But that doesn't mean that the destruction was the "coming" itself. That may sound like a stretch, but then let's look, finally, at another type of "coming" which is neglected in this theory.

    Another important point is when the spiritual "presence" of God that was called "the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4) would begin. Jesus said He must ascend so that the Comforter would come unto them. And here was when He claimed that He would be "with" them, spiritually (John 14-17). But the Holy Spirit came into the Church shortly after, in the next chapter, on Pentecost, AD33, not AD70. In no way is that said to fulfill the second coming of Christ, though it is a "parousia". Nowhere is it said that this would still leave them incomplete, until some other spiritual parousia afterward. This theory has them having the Spirit, but them still being in some "limbo" with redemption not being complete for 37 years. It's as if the third member of the Godhead Himself is apparently not enough. But He is the only vehicle through which Christ is said to be spiritually present. (Adding another, would in effect, constitute a fourth Person of the Godhead!) And Jesus said that the coming of the Spirit would be what would get them set for the spiritual "kingdom" of the church age. But none of this was said to fulfill the literal kingdom promised elsewhere.
     
  19. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    I do not consider myself an expert on Preterism, there are many who could explain these things much better than I. I would consider myself at the Junior High Level in the school of Preterism.

    So with that disclaimer let me start with this response:

    Here is something I found on the "transition period":


    The Covenant did not simply change from Old to New over the weekend.

    The New Covenant was inaugurated at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, but would not be fully effective until the consummation of the Old Covenant, namely, at the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.
    Therefore, there was a transitional period during which both covenants coincided. During this time, Christians had a guarantee, a down payment, but would have to remain faithful and patient until all of the promises were delivered.


    If these points are true, then
    We would expect that the Christians of the time would have been eagerly awaiting the consummation of the Old Covenant and the fullness of the New Covenant.
    The promises and hopes that the apostles were encouraging the Christians with would have pertained to the arrival of the New Covenant.
    It would justify the clear sense of imminence portrayed by terms like 'soon', 'at hand', 'these last days' and 'about to...'. It would also explain the consistent use of the first and second person, such as "as you see the day drawing near", "He will confirm you till the end", and "we who are alive and remain".
    It would make Jesus' promise of same-generation occurrence of the end fulfilled, rather than to be explained away.

    If something is hoped for in the future, then it is not for the present. If it is for the present, then it is not hoped for in the future.
    However, if something has been promised for the future, and a down payment has been made for it, then it is true to say that it is here now, and yet to be hoped for. The down payment is an assurance, a guarantee, but the fulfillment is yet eagerly awaited.
    2 Corinthians 5:5 - Now He who prepared us for this very purpose (immortality) is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge (=down payment).
    Ephesians 1:13-14 - ... you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise (14) who is given as a pledge (=down payment) of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
    The following are among those things which were promised to the disciples, spoken of as if they were present, and yet still eagerly awaited and hoped for in the future:

    1 Salvation and redemption

    Do we have salvation? Are we redeemed? Galatians 3:13 and Colossians 1:14 tell us plainly that Paul thought so.
    Luke 2:30 - "For my eyes have seen Your salvation."
    Acts 4:12 - And there is salvation in no one else.
    2 Corinthians 6:2 - ... for He says, "At the acceptable time I listened to you, and on the day of salvation I helped you." Behold, now is "the acceptable time", behold, now is "the day of salvation." (Paul is demonstrating that God was helping them and listening to them then, as it was now the time!)
    Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us.
    Colossians 1:14 - (His beloved Son,) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
    However, look at the following. They were waiting for these things.
    Hebrews 1:14 - ... for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?
    Hebrews 9:28 - so Christ ... will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. (1 Corinthians 1:7; Titus 2:13 - they were eagerly awaiting Him!)
    Luke 21:27-28 - "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (28) But when these things begin to take place ... your redemption is drawing near."
    Romans 8:23 - ...but also we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (That is, "this body of death", or the body that serves "the law of sin" - Romans 7:23-25ff. But look at 8:1-2, "... For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.")
    Romans 13:11 - for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.
    Ephesians 4:30 - Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
    1Peter 1:5-9 - (you,) who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (8) ... and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him... (9) obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

    2 The righteousness of God
    Do we now possess God's righteousness? Righteousness is perfect innocence before God. According to Romans 3:21-26, faith in Jesus Christ gives righteousness, "for all who believe."
    Righteousness, is something that belongs to the new covenant. Without righteousness, our sins remain with us. But in the new covenant, God says, "I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." - Jeremiah 31:31-34. This is not just when we 'die and go to heaven', but is part and parcel of the new covenant. If we belong to the new covenant, then we are judged righteous.
    Now look at Philippians 3:8-14. Paul is looking forward to gaining Christ, in order to receive

    His righteousness.

    Philippians 3:8-14 - ...in order that I may gain Christ, (9) and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith... (12) Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that... (13) Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet... (14) I press on toward the goal...

    [Now before you jump on me and say that it was the resurrection that he had not yet obtained, I believe that verse 11 (in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead) is in relation to the result of obtaining God's righteousness, and is not the subject of verse 12. Why? Because in verse 12 he talks about obtaining 'it'. Even though the KJV uses the same word 'attain' as in verse 11 (attain to the resurrection...), the word is more correctly 'obtain'. The Greek word in verse 12 is lambano, which means to take hold of, in other words to 'obtain'.
    In verse 9, Paul talks about 'having' righteousness. The Greek word for 'having' means to hold or possess. On the other hand, the word 'attain' in verse 11, used in reference to the resurrection, is katantao, which means to arrive at, or reach.
    So, the resurrection is something Paul wants to reach or arrive at, while righteousness is something he wants to lay hold of, or obtain.
    Verse 12 says that he has not already obtained it, therefore he must be referring to his righteousness. This righteousness, then would make him perfect. "Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on..." In fact, some manuscripts actually say, "Not that I have already obtained it, or have already been justified.]
    Paul had not yet achieved righteousness, and yet righteousness was the gift "for all who believe". Jeremiah 33 describes the new covenant this way:
    Jeremiah 33:16 - In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the Lord is our righteousness. (Verses 19-21 show that it is the new covenant that Jeremiah is describing)
    Christians now have the full righteousness of God. Paul in his day did not fully have it, but was hoping for it, striving for it.

    Romans 11:26-27 - .. and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob (i.e. perfect His people)". "This is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins." (Is this covenant in place now, or in the future?)
    Galatians 5:5 - For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. (Are we waiting for the hope of righteousness, or do we have it now? They were waiting for it.)

    2 Timothy 4:8 - In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

    Hebrews 12:11 - All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

    3 The resurrection and immortality
    This is an important point, and a study unto itself. It has been dealt with in our study Another look at the resurrection <Resurrection.html>. In it, we point to Scriptures which show that we have, as New Covenant holders, attained immortality at the point of our conversion (For the 'Calvinist', this means since the foundation of the world!). Although we today have immortality, this is something that is subsequent to the resurrection, and something the writers of the epistles were looking forward to.

    Titus 1:2 - in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, (3) but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior.

    4 Adoption as sons of God

    Are we God's children now, in the full sense of being heirs with Christ? According to Paul, yes... and no.
    Galatians 4:4-6 - But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His son... (5) that we might receive the adoption as sons. (6) Because you are sons...

    Romans 8:14-24 - For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (15) For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (16) The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, (17) and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. (18) For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. (19) For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. (20) For the creation was subjected to futility... in hope (21) that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God... (23) ...but also we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (24) For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? (25) But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
    5 Transformation to the likeness of Christ and His glory

    Many Christians conclude that there must be two types of Christ's glory, but the Bible only speaks of one. It was a hope for the early Christians, and yet as reality. For us today, it is something that has been given to us.

    John 17:22 - "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them..."

    Romans 8:29 - For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

    2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away, behold, new things have come.

    2 Corinthians 3:6-18 - ... who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit ... (16) but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away... (18) But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. (Not: "are going to be transformed", but: "are being transformed")

    Philippians 3:20-21 - For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; (21) who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
    Ephesians 4:17-24 - So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk... (22) that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self... (23) and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, (24) and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

    2 Peter 1:4 - For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

    1 John 3:2 - Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

    6 Built up as God's house

    God's house is the temple (Matthew 21:12-13). Christians in the New Covenant are the new temple of God, with God dwelling within. Are we that now, or are we still being built? As individuals, we are each of us temples:

    John 14:23 - "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him."

    1 Corinthians 6:19 - Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit...
    However, as a collection of bodily parts, the church (universal) is also clearly represented as the temple:

    1 Corinthians 3:16 - Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? (The context shows that 'you' = 'brethren' in verse 1. That is, 'you' collectively are a temple, not temples. Verse 9: For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.)
    However, it is also clear that the temple of Christians was still in the process of being built, that this was also something they were looking forward to.

    Ephesians 2:19-22 - So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, (20) having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, (21) in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, (22) in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

    Hebrews 3:6 - but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house - whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.

    7 Access to God in His Holy (Holiest) Place

    Hebrews 10:19 - Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus... (23) Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful... (25) all the more as you see the day drawing near.
    Hebrews 9:8 - The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer (or first) tabernacle is still standing, (9) which is a symbol for the present time.
    Hebrews 10:23 - Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. (What hope? Our drawing near to God - Hebrews 7:19) From Hebrews 3 and 4, this is the equivalent of entering God's rest.
    Hebrews 4:11 - Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest.

    What does it mean?

    If they were looking forward to something, waiting eagerly for it, then they did not yet possess it in its fullness. And yet, there was always a sense in which they already owned it. They had the down payment. It was not that the New Covenant had not yet begun: It had, but it was not in full effect, until the Old Covenant was utterly destroyed. They were free of it's burden of slavery, but until the first tabernacle was removed, the way into the Holy Place and complete access to God was not disclosed.
    The Christians of the time were in a unique position: They were living not just between covenants, but in the end times of the Old Covenant which coincided with the beginning of the New.

    Co-existing covenants?

    Paul compared the old and new covenants with Hagar and Sarah (Galatians 4:21-31). The children of the first covenant are represented by Ishmael, while the children of the new covenant are represented by Isaac, the first being in bondage and the second being free. For years, they existed in Abraham's household together, but "he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now." (v29)

    Now read verse 30: "But what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.'"

    So, the two covenants were to exist together, in tension, until the first was cast out.
    What were the pre-AD70 Christians waiting for? For the children of the covenant under bondage to be cast out, so that they could become full heirs!

    Hebrews 8:13 - When He said, "A new covenant," He made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready (near) to disappear.
     
  20. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Zechariah 12:10 - I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him...

    Who will look upon Him? The house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This defines who 'they' are: They will look upon Me, whom they pierced.

    Rev 1:7 is a 1st century event.

    But it was John who was to do these things. It doesn't say john will start them and someone else will finish it. Unless you believe John will return in the future.

    16 And many of the children of Israel shall be turn unto the Lord their God.
    17 And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him

    There were many Jews who believed.

    So how much Jewish blood do they have to have? Who knows, you and I may have an ancestor who was a Pharisee. You more likely than me though. [​IMG]

    Those in the 1st century who were half Jews were looked on as scum, let alone ones today who may only be 1/50th Jew. When it says all Israel will be saved, who is Israel? Religious Jews in Israel, Religious Jews world-wide, anyone living in Israel at the time whether jew or Gentile? How about non-practicing Jews living in Israel? What about converts to Judaism, are they included? How will they be divided by tribes when their bloodlines are so mixed? No-one knows who is of what tribe, all the records were destroyed in the Temple in AD70.
    In order for your view to be true, there must be Jews living today who are racially pure and direct descendants of those in the 1st century. If God is not done with the physical Jews, there must be some, at least 144000, still around. Yet look at the people living there today, some look european and others eastern and some in between. I find it very difficult to believe there are any "full-blooded" Jews living today who kept thei bloodline pure after 2000 years.

    Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies , and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. "

    1 Tim. 1:4 " Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies , which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: (so do)."

    The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
    'The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race.


    Actually its describing covenental change.


    Again, I find no scripture to back this view up. I'm not saying its wrong, though I believe it is, I just think its an assumption.

    I believe the spiritual curse is removed in the New Heaven and New Earth.

    I was under the assumption you agreed with Spurgeon that the New H and E were metaphores. What about the New Hand E in Is 65?

    We rule and reign with Christ forever. Do you use Rev 21 and 22 as your view of eternity?

    Hugh Ross in his book " The Genesis Question" makes the case using the Hebrew language that it was a local flood. ( www.reasons.org ) Nonetheless I think the Noah reference was one of certainty and being prepared.

    It was not for the time of Habakkuk, but when it was the appointed time, which I believe was the time of the writing of Hebrews, He will not tarry.

    Yes, but He also said "the world will see me no more."

    Actually I think you will find most, regardless of eschatological view, will say that it was earlier. Though Christ lived 33 years the calanders were off by anywhere from 3-6 years. Many put His death at AD29 or AD 30.

    He earlier talked about the nature of the Kingdom. "It is within you", "it is not of this world", "do not look here or there". Dan. 2 tells us that the kingdom would come during the Roman Empire. It was clearly a spiritual Kingdom He was bringing.

    AD 70 was when all those who had died were brought into judgement. Matt 12: 39-42.
    Everyone after this is judged at death. “It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement.”

    The trampled by the Gentiles refer to the Roman siege on Jerusalem, which lasted coincidently 3 and one half years.


    9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

    Out of sight and in a cloud. See Matt 26:64

    Actually it wasn’t a parousia. The word isn’t used in those texts.
     
Loading...