A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

I was responding to the last line of yours. I assumed it was yours because there were no quotes after it. You had no closing quotes, so my misunderstanding is easy to do. This is the line:

"It appears the 95 to 96 A.D. writiting of the book of revelation is accurate if you believe the writings of these men who live in the 100 and 200 A.D. time period."

 

Of course not. But we don't take isolated passages and make them normative.

But what do you call that? Are those people alive today? Was that their resurrection? And what about Lazarus? Was that his resurrection? Or were these all instructive types for us?

 

No, I don't.

We are so used to the physical that it is hard for us to accept that the spiritual is better. The first century Jews had the same blind spot. But Scripture teaches us that our eternal bodies are going to be spiritual. I cor 15:

"46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."

 

It is a patent denial of what you were taught is the Gospel.

 

I call it a resurrection of the OT saints, just as Christ promised Martha.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?


Jesus was speaking to her about the physical resurrection of Lazarus. Was his body raised from the dead or just his spirit? Jesus is clearly teaching that there is a physical resurrection.

 

So then you do believe that those saints who walked into Jerusalem are still alive, and that Lazarus is still alive?

Or, if they died, then these people get two resurrections? I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am just trying to understand your view.

I don't see how Lazarus's could be a resurrection, seeing that Christ Himself is the Firstfruits.

 

If this is the case then clearly Lazarus is at a disadvantage since "flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of God". When Christ said, "Lazarus, come forth!" did Lazarus rise up with his blood. Well, yes.

Do you see the problem here with what you are claiming?

 

Can you please quote that verse word for word with the reference.

 

We will have real physical bodies in the resurrection.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job says that although his present body will be destroyed by worms, yet in his FLESH he shall see God.

 

Walvoord was no different than Hal Lindsey in this regard:


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310539218/?tag=baptis04-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1414315821/?tag=baptis04-20

Something similar happened in 1990. John F. Walvoord recycled and revised his Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis to fit with what was then considered to be the latest in the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in our day. The 1974 edition opened with this declaration: “Each day’s headlines raise new questions concerning what the future holds.”[2] As we now know, Walvoord’s book was guided by current events and not sound methods of biblical interpretation. Described as “the world’s foremost interpreter of biblical prophecy,” in 1991 he expected “‘the Rapture to occur in his own lifetime.’”[3] While Walvoord didn’t invent the prophetic speculation game, as Frank Gumerlock points out it his The Day and the Hour, he did make a ton of money playing it.*

*http://americanvision.org/1768/publishers-pushing-for-armageddon/

“And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of his book” (22:7).
“And the [angel] said to [John], ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (22:10).
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (22:12).
“Yes, I am coming quickly” (22:20).

Anyone reading these passages for the first time would rightly conclude that whatever is being described in these verses, the event is on the horizon. In fact, it takes lengthy reprogramming by dispensationalists, who claim to interpret the Bible literally, to get people to believe time is not being discussed but only speed. Here’s how John Walvoord explains the use of “shortly: “The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden (cf. Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20).”[1] Of course, that’s not what Revelation 1:1 says, and neither do the verses Walvoord cites for support. In fact, dispensational author Robert Thomas writes, “but in at least two of these passages the conclusion is debatable (cf. Luke 18:8; Rom. 16:20).”[2] This does not mean that Thomas disagrees with Walvoord’s conclusion. “The strongest support for this view,” Thomas argues, “is by way of an objection to the other alternative, that the phrase means ‘soon’ and has reference to nearness of fulfillment of the events predicted. The objection is that such an alternative is impossible because a futurist approach to the book would require the events to have taken place close to John’s lifetime.”[3] So while Revelation 1:1 and 1:3 seem to indicate that the predicted events are to have taken place to John’s lifetime, don’t believe it, because it would mean that dispensationalism isn’t true. So how does Thomas get around his claim that he interprets the Bible literally? “[T]ime in the Apocalypse is computed either relatively to the divine apprehension as here and in 22:10[4] (cf. 1:3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20) or absolutely in itself as long or short (cf. 8:1; 20:2).” What does this mean? He goes on: “When measuring time, Scripture has a different standard from ours (cf. 1 John 2:18).” This is question begging in the extreme. Thomas assumes what he must prove. Consider his proof text of 1 John 2:18: “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.” John tells his readers that it is the last hour. If it wasn’t, the Bible is totally mixed up, confusing, and means the opposite of what it actually says. And what is the evidence that it was the last hour for John and the recipients of his letter?: that “even now many antichrists have arisen.” “From this,” the fact that even now many antichrists have arise, “we know that it is the last hour.” You don’t have to me a master logician to follow John’s line of reasoning.

http://americanvision.org/1244/maki...site-taking-closer-look-at-time-texts-part-5/

 

So you think that Job's passage somehow negates the clearer passage in 1 Cor. 15?

A good translation would have helped you here, at least as far as some of these difficulties are concerned.

There are no "worms" in the text. The KJV's italics for the words show that they felt it was implied. The NKJV does a better job, as far as I can see.

25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;

26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God,

27 Whom I shall see for myself,
And my eyes shall behold, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

Questions come to mind as to who are the destroyers of verse 26. Some commentaries say that these could even be Job's miserable comforters. Neither do we have to insist that the end times are what we modern Christians think by that term. That term is not at all used that way in the OT.

The phrase "in my flesh" can also be translated "from my flesh" (as in "outside of my flesh"). The sense then would be, "Even though I am no longer in the flesh I will still see God."

If you look at a variety of commentaries - I mean scholarly ones from different centuries - you will find that there is a wide range of interpretation of this passages. So, then, why would you want to use this passage to help flesh out (no pun intended) your exposition of the much clearer and unequivocal 1 Cor. 15:50?
__________________
The best way to understand any problem passage in the Bible is to look within the same book first and see if we can't find helpful clues. And, sure enough, we do have such help in Job.

Having studied this out some more I believe that the Redeemer that Job was talking about and the meeting and seeing God is found in this very book. Job 42:5:

5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You."

Job states in 19:26 his confidence that things will turn out right in the end, that he will "see God". This is exactly what happened here at the end of the book.

Now if any of this looks familiar we can move on to part two...

 

Oh please. Of course you meant to be unkind. Its your style. You can't match content for content so you do the snide thing.

I will wait for when you get a real response together. Or when someone else will. If you miss out on this basic assertion, well, I don't hold out much hope for this thread going anywhere.

 

asterisktom,
You did not answer my post, and for good reason. This was your post:

Your supposed verse that you quoted here was 1Cor.15:50, but you misquoted it. There is no verse in the Bible that says "flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." If there is, produce it.

Here is what the verse says:
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; (1 Corinthians 15:50)
--Inherit doesn't not mean enter.
One can still enter the kingdom of God with flesh, as Jesus did; Elijah did, and others have.

Furthermore, regarding a literal coming:
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:9-11)

They saw him go up in a physical body. They were told that he will come back in like manner, in a physical body. How can it be anything other than physical?

 

This will probably get me in trouble but here goes...

You sir could make a lot more hay for your cause if you could find it in your heart to get back on topic and actually answer some questions. I for one am not impressed with your constant "snide remarks" remarks. I wish I had JOJ's gracious demeanor. He has, in my opinion been more than patient with those who take exception to his beliefs.

I normally mind my own business but this is getting out of hand.

 

The OP.......

 

I am going to bed, but I thought I better answer this part. I didn't answer your question because I didn't see it, quite frankly. I have a lot of responses on this thread alone and I just missed this

Your point is well taken. I did misquote it. This comes from my typing too quickly. Thanks for the correction.

I am done with this part. See my earlier comments.