A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

Sorry for the delay, got busy.

Matthew 24:27
"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

John Gill

so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

Adam Clarke

It is worthy of remark that our Lord, in the most particular manner, points out the very march of the Roman army: they entered into Judea on the EAST, and carried on their conquest WESTWARD, as if not only the extensiveness of the ruin, but the very route which the army would take, were intended in the comparison of the lightning issuing from the east, and shining to the west

John Lightfoot

1. That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deuteronomy 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell" (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see verses 20,21), "and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light," &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isaiah 65:17; "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered," &c. And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:17, &c.

2. That Christ's taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ's "coming in glory," and his "coming in the clouds," Daniel 7. It is also called, "the day of the Lord." See Psalm 1:4; Malachi 3:1,2, &c.; Joel 2:31; Matthew 16:28; Revelation 1:7, &c. See what we have said on chapter 12:20; 19:28.



These men, and many others, saw the events of AD70 as a coming of Christ on the clouds. They obvious saw that "parousia" did not mean a physical coming in this passage. However they all did believe in a future physical coming. It seems they did not share your hermeneutic.

Analogy of Faith when possible, and I let the NT writers interpret the OT for me. Never been to Seminary or Bible College so I don't know if there is aname for various methods other than the grammatical-historical

I've think I've said I see no reason to interpret this way. What method forces you into this type of interpretation?*

Acts 11 is the best case for a physical Second Coming. If one believes it is speaking of a Physical return of Jesus I will not argue. I am preterist but I have not determined which specific view within preterism is correct. I would come to the conclusion that Acts 11 refers to a physical coming by the text, not by the hermeneutic rule you laid out in the OP.

My personal struggles are how to separate the coming in Acts from the other coming in scripture that I believe clearly refer to AD70.*

Again, my problem is how to separate this coming from the Olivet Discourse coming. You probably don't have this problem but if you believe the Olivet Discourse speaks of AD70 then how does one justify yet another coming. Not that it can't be justified by Gill, Lightfoot, Sproul etc.....I would just love to ask them how. Thus my conundrum.

Perhaps no one buys your premise that one must always assume literal/physical interpretations. My favorite Full Preterist author wrote a book on this topic. Here is a link to a you tube presentation:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXi0Wv9dGVI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Is he right? Who knows, but he does use a hermeneutic to make the case that is was to be a spiritual coming.

 

John Gill, though well respected in Baptist circles, had views that would be considered heretical in our day. You quoted one of them above. I posted this a couple of pages ago. It comes from Vedder's, Baptist History.

His views were outside the realm of orthodoxy to say the least, and that is being kind, maybe too kind.
My entire post is here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1675282&postcount=44

 

This thread should have been titled biblical proof of full preterism…

…or maybe Christ inspired proof


It is certainly essential that we look to the Old Testament to know how to understand the New Testament. Since the N.T. writers and readers only had the O.T. to draw on for examples we have to look at the O.T. to comprehend their view point and mindset. And, unless Christ or the Apostles tell us that something has changed then we can apply O.T. principles to the N.T. in similar situations.

Case in point. Isaiah 19:1
An oracle against Egypt:
Look, the LORD rides on a swift cloud
and is coming to Egypt.
Egypt's idols will tremble before Him,
and Egypt's heart will melt within it.

There was no physical incarnation of God riding a cloud against Egypt. Cloud language is commonly employed to denote the presence of God and everyone knows this verse represents the Assyrian Army conquering Egypt.

In the same way Christ came against Jerusalem in 70 AD. He described as much in Mark 13:26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Here we have the clouds again, another example coming, and we know the Roman Army sacked Jerusalem.

Similar verses, similar events, similar interpretation and fulfillment.

We also have more of the same in Matthew 26:64-65
64 "You have said it," Jesus told him. "But I tell you, in the future you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Look, now you've heard the blasphemy!

Caiaphas knew this was calling himself God since he applied the actions of God to himself and accused him of blasphemy.

Further, we have Christ himself telling us his Kingdom is not literal. In Luke 17:20-21

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God will come, He answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; 21 no one will say, 'Look here!' or 'There!' For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

When I read these simple and straightforward verses I have to remember back to when I was a futurist to try and comprehend how anyone could think there is a future literal coming of Christ.

Neither Christ nor the Apostle ever give us a new way to interpret these verses so we are safe to view them the way their audience would have understood them.

How some people strive to make something so simple so complicated. God must be amused at us and disappointed in us.

 

Were just spinning our wheels here. No matter who I quote in support of my view you just dismiss them. They are either to Reformed, too old or too white. It seems no one earlier than Scofield is acceptable.

Because I don't see Baptist has having a monopoly on truth. in fact, when it comes to eschatology Baptist leave a lot to be desired in my view.
*
*

*

*
No, when dealing with the prophecies of Jesus' birth I take them all as literal.
*

*
So let's take those same people and let them read Rev. 1:1,3 or Rev. 22:7,10. They would assume Jesus meant what the words normally mean. But then you come around and straighten them out and explain to them "well, those don't really mean what you think they do. Remember now God's time is not man's time" then you would go to Daniel and explain there's really a gap in there even though it not written there in the text. I could go on and on. I've only seen one Dispie on this board who was honest enough to admit that all sides take some things literally and some things not so much. That Dispie was HankD. He's a stand up guy.

*

1. Are you saying Paul was unaware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem?
2. Paul would only tell people to eagerly wait if he thought they would see the event.
*
*

Doesn't say much for your view of the Triumphant Church. Dipensationalism causes one to have a horrible world view.*
*
*

*
It is your premise on the subject at hand.

.

At least it is not based on the current newspaper headlines as Walvoord did.

 

Grasshopper,
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Revelation 22:20-21)

The Promise of Jesus--I come quickly.
The Prayer of John--For Jesus to come quickly.
The Benediction of John

This is how the Book of Revelation ends, a book written ca.98 A.D. Here Jesus promises that he is coming again, and John prays for him to come again soon. The destruction of the Temple took place almost 30 years previous to this date. Well after the destruction of the Temple John is still praying for the literal return of Christ. How do you account for this? Is John deluded?

 

That is so wrong on your part. You go against established Christian scholars like Timothy George and Tom Nettles who insist that he wasn't even a mere hyper-Calvinist much less than a "radical" hyper-Calvinist. On what basis do you make your bold assertion?

You have quoted John Gill favorably in the past on the BB. When did you make your change in course and doubt his Christianity it seems?

I fervently disagree with some strong Arminians of the past such as your grandad. But I never said I had no respect for him and try to paint him as being a heretic or apostate.

Because you object to some of John Gill's beliefs you should not say that you have no respect for him when his works have been such a tremendous boon to Christians through the centuries.

 

Acts 15:16 After this, I will return

In Acts 15:14 James says that Peter declared that GoD had begun to take out from among the Gentiles a people for his name.

Verse 15 says that the word of the prophets agree that this would take place.

There is no reference in Amos 9:11 to this taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name therefore the, After this, is not a quote of Amos 9:11 but is saying after the taking out from among the Gentiles Amos 9:11 will take place.

I do not believe the fulness of the Gentiles has come in yet has it?

Therefore the I will return has not neither.

 

There are many fine scholars from whom we learn from and even look up to. I use Keil and Deilitzch (sp?) extensive commentary on the OT quite often, in spite of the fact that they were known liberals. They believe in the JEDP theory on the Pentateuch, the two Isaiah authorship, etc. But they were Hebrew scholars and give great insight into the meanings of Hebrew words.

I use Gill also, not because he is Calvinist or Baptist, even. One has to read analytically, separating the good from the bad. It is hard to find good commentaries. Do you ever find one that you can agree with 100%?
I haven't.

 

I think we are in agreement here!! The body that is "sown" into the earth, is our physical body. It will molder back to the dust. The body that comes out will be a body likened unto Jesus' most glorious body, which I believe to be "Spiritual" in essence.

We are in complete agreement here!!

I agree with this also!!

Now, if Jesus has already "come again", circa AD70, then how will our physical bodies be resurrected in our "spiritual" form? Doesn't the change from physical to spiritual take place in the grave when Jesus comes in the clouds(1 Thes. 4:16)? If this has already taken place, then how will our spiritual bodies rise to meet Jesus in the cloud? This is what is puzzling me. I am not baiting you in any way, Brother, because I see a lot of harmony in our beliefs here. However, if He has already came, circa AD70, then how can these other things come to pass. Please explain to me how our bodies(spiritual bodies, I mean) will be resurrected, if He has already come. PWEEZE????


i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

This is why I am passing on this whole discussion. There is too much misunderstanding here. The spiritual interpretation of the Bible does not equate neatly to "allegorical". There is allegory in the Bible. But there is also metaphor and spiritual interpretation. Three different things. They overlap sometimes, but certainly not always.

But it is not a case of either literal or allegorical.

 

The body that Jesus was raised in though was the "same" body that he died in...
Physical flesh was transformed into a glorified nature/state, but was SAME body God had given unto Him at His incarnation, just in a different state ...

Bible teaches that while absent from our bodies, will be in Heaven, BUT long/waiting for the Time when God will reunite our sprits/souls once again in the physical body that will than be gloried...

God can resurrect back from dead/grave same bodies we we born with, and those will get the glorified plan once reunited with our spiritual side at Second Coming!




We are in complete agreement here!!




I agree with this also!!




Now, if Jesus has already "come again", circa AD70, then how will our physical bodies be resurrected in our "spiritual" form? Doesn't the change from physical to spiritual take place in the grave when Jesus comes in the clouds(1 Thes. 4:16)? If this has already taken place, then how will our spiritual bodies rise to meet Jesus in the cloud? This is what is puzzling me. I am not baiting you in any way, Brother, because I see a lot of harmony in our beliefs here. However, if He has already came, circa AD70, then how can these other things come to pass. Please explain to me how our bodies(spiritual bodies, I mean) will be resurrected, if He has already come. PWEEZE????

Jesus MUST sound trumpet call of God, and the DEAD bodies in grave, same ones that died, will be raised up reunited with spirit/soul and once complete again, will THAN be glorified...

Don't think THAT happened in AD 70, if it did, NNE heard/saw it!

have to remember that unril Second Coming the souls of those died are with the Lord in heaven, earnestly waiting for the time of His coming to finally bring to pass their full glorification !

Too much remains unfulfilled by bible prophect to be able to accept the AD 70 event as being THE Second Coming Of jesus to earth!
i am I AM's!!

Willis[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Just a short question. If we (Whatever this we is) are absent from the body and present with the Lord in heaven at death, yet we (Whatever this is) have a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens and we (Again?) groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

Just what is the purpose of the theses verses?

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

However if, they (Whatever this means) also which sleep in Jesus, really are the dead (What?) in Christ there would be a purpose for the above especially if we understood the, "God will being with him" and the, "shall not precede them" as being, into the kingdom of God and the same as, "and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" the preceding above would make perfect sense.

Jesus came preaching the kingdom of God. Paul said he preached the kingdom of God everywhere he went.

Born again into the kingdom of God takes place at the resurrection of the just. Hab. 2:4 the just shall live by his faith. That living begins at the resurrection. And he is the head, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might have the preeminence. WE are, the body, the church: and we will follow him at our resurrection. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;