A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

It wasn't serious and didn't deserve an answer

It didn't get an answer because it didn't deserve one.

If you wanted an answer to it as you well know you could have looked in many places, in many threads, and gotten more answers than you care to read.

If you want to be taken serious--ask serious questions instead of being so transparently facetious.

 

Tha is not the only odd thing

Isn't it odd how you are becoming more argumentative and curt and less interested in debating as the weakness in your position gets more exposure.

 

You may have answered it "point blank" and I misunderstood you; for that I am sorry.

This is where we part ways, Brother. I believe in a resurrected body, but that this body will be in spirit form. It will go and reunite with the soul that went to God when that person died, and went to be with God in heaven until Jesus comes back to gather His children. So I believe in a general resurrection, with the dead in Christ rising first, those who are alive and remain, and are saved, will be changed in a moment and a twinkling of an eye, to be called up to meet Jesus!! Those who died in their sins will be raised up also, and judgement is rendered(at the same time this judgement takes place), the saints go Home, and the sinners go to the LoF.

Our soul takes on this glorified state when it becomes new in Christ by His blood, when He saved that person. We in, the ORBs, call this the "wedding garment," "a long white robe," etc. You don't get this after you die, but when you are born again/born from above!!

I agree that the soul is seperated from the body upon death, and it goes to heaven(those who are born again). The physical body does not go to heaven until after Jesus returns to gather the wheat into His barn, and bind the chaff and cast it into the fiery furnace. The physical body is changed from a natural body, to a spiritual body, likened unto Jesus' most glorious body!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

The thread is 17 pages long and I don't have the time to read it all. What appears to be a denial of the literal return of the Lord Jesus Christ, and a bodily resurrection of believers would be considered heresy in most churches that I frequent. So, if I come across somewhat appalled, surprised, and even shocked that we have Baptists that deny what most of us would consider cardinal doctrines of the faith, please understand the tone of my post.
Your answer:
it didn't deserve one.
Is just downright rude. I don't know what you do for a living, but is that the way you and your pastor treat others on a regular basis.

There are many things that I can look up on the internet. But this is a debate forum. Your view is as unorthodox as the J.W.'s IMO. They also made false predictions of the return of Christ, as did the SDA's. So, I think it is quite fair to ask what evidence do you have that Christ returned in 70 A.D., or are your claims just like these other cults?

"It doesn't deserve an answer" tells me that you don't have an answer to such an embarrassing question, one that would embarrass you and your beliefs. You have stepped outside of the bounds of orthodoxy and into the realm of cults.

Therefore:
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Peter 3:15)

 

This is my great difficulty among others with full preterism. Since (according to full preterism) "all has been accomplished", then so has the resurrection of the dead. Not only that but all the elect must of necessity have been gathered to Christ if "all has been accomplished".

We are then without hope having been "left behind" almost 2 millennia after the fact.

HankD

 

Knowing Greek or hiding behind Greek

Brother John,

I’ve read your opinion of Strong’s many times here and I’m well aware of your opinion of it. I think you have good greek skills (and have enjoyed your comments in that area) and ironically what is your greatest strength is also your weakness. You are like the man who only has a hammer and every problem looks like it requires a nail to solve it.

Sometimes you can’t see the forest as it were for the trees. But that is a side point at the moment.

The fact remains that your wishful thinking to the contrary aer does incorporate a spiritual element to its connotation of air. Trying to finagle the greek around it tells me you are in greek territory you are uncomfortable having to defend because it weakens your orthodoxy.

Instead of simply seeking truth you worship at the altar of a future literal and physical return and try to twist and manipulate everything to support this preconceived notion.

I think Paul was probably as good at greek as you are and since he chose to use aer along with its spiritual connation instead of ouranos with its purer emphasis on the sky or atmosphere you would do well to understand what he is telling you instead of using greek to hide your beliefs behind.

 

Riddle: When is a Moderator not a Moderator

Dear DHK,

That is a lazy attempt at being sanctimonious at best. Right under your name is the moniker of “moderator.” And being a moderator of the board do you expect me to believe that you haven’t come across the answer to your question more times than either one of us cares to count in here—yet you pretend otherwise. If you are moderating at all then you have seen it many times and yet you say otherwise—do you know how this makes you look to anybody who has been on the boards for any length of time. I’m no moderator and I’ve seen it answered plenty of times—how could it possibly be that I know your board better than you do? Do you think you can be credible with such a position? You have just convicted your own position—that it doesn’t deserve an answer. In the years to come when I’m engaged in honest debates with people I’ll no doubt continue to answer that question plenty more times—but I won’t waste my time with false pretenses of ignorance.

You can whip out the cult word if that is the best you can do. Being a full preterist (and proud Baptist I might add) I’ve been called many things and at this point I’m just not impressed with it.

If I were going to use one word to describe you I would have to compare you to the Pharisees when Jesus convicted them of hiding behind their orthodoxy instead of seeking truth. Maybe you should examine your orthodoxy and see where it has gotten you the last 2,000 years. So far you have been wrong in your beliefs for 2,000 years and still counting. For your average, honest thinker 2,000 years of being wrong might be enough to merit some honest re-examination of one’s position. A little food for thought brother DHK.

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise." Proverbs 12:15

 

We should start a thread Hank

Hello Hank,

Good to hear from you again. You have (sadly) missed the point though. In full preterism you have’t been left behind and are not without hope for 2 millennia—just the opposite—you have had victory in Christ for 2 millennia.

We don’t need to be apologizing for the time statements in the bible and warning people that Christ is coming in the future—we need to be proclaiming his victory and celebrating it.

Futurists are looking more and more foolish all the time trying to explain away his soon coming and it just gets worse with every passing day for them. Preterists stand on his victory, truth, and fulfilled promises.

This is much more comforting to someone in pain—to know their God kept his word and fulfilled all things than to keep wondering when he will get around to it some 2,000 years later.

In fact you have inspired me—this would make an excellent topic for a new thread when I have the time to get around to it. Keep an eye out for it and come post your thoughts there.

Regards.

 

OK, I'll be looking for the new thread.

HankD

 

Dear Logos1,

I'm no moderator, I'm fairly new to the board, I've never seen this issue discussed anywhere, and I want to hear the answer to these questions:

What credible evidence do you have that Christ came in 70 A.D.?
Who saw him? Where is the evidence?
Was there a Millennial Kingdom that followed? How can you verify this 70 A.D. coming of Christ?

Please don't tell me to do a search on the subject because I don't have the time. I'd simply like to hear a condensed, conversational answer to the questions.

 

have to remember that to the hyper pretierist, that they view the "Great Tribulation" has being fulfilled when God "judged" the Jewish systems at destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, so referred to the time of event when God judged the "Old ways" as being invalid, and thus ushered in "new Age" under messiah...

Its like saying that Old system under Isreal destroyed by God at 70 AD, and that we now have a new Kingdom age, ruled by messiah...

So its like almost Amil, in the Spiritual Kingdom age on earth, Jesus ruling from heavens, BUT big difference is that Amil DOES allow for literal physical return of Jesus at end of this Age, physical bodily resurrection for saints than. Hyper Pre does not, as we are ruling now with Christ, and get spiritual bodies right at death, so why need a physical bodily resurrection?

Also no coming Great tribulation, as nero was Antichrist, and God judging as "faulty" old Jewish system by doing it 70 AD fulfilled the prophecies, as they see them as either allogorical oy srpirtualized essentially....

By the way, am a pre mill dspy myself, hope that I have presented their views accurately!

 

Take just the one doctrine of preterism, that Jesus returned in AD 70. Comparing the first coming where there is a mountain of historical evidence, literature and so forth. The first coming is considered one of if not the single most important event in written human history, even unbelievers acknowledge this.

Then looking at the Bible teaching on the second coming which is described as so much more spectacular than the first. And yet there is no historical evidence on what would certainly be a top 5 event in human history, an AD 70 return of Christ, which amazingly preterists believe. It is actually hard to believe that we are even debating this subject.

And don't forget JesusFan, Babylon is really a code word for Jerusalem.

 

Your right, I am a moderator, and as such wear two hats: one as a poster who may take part in any debate, and one who moderates especially deleting posts that are personal attacks against others like this one. An attack against a moderator is totally unwarranted.

As a moderator of four different forums I do not have the time to read every page of every thread in each forum. I told you that I had not read all 17 pages of this thread and had no intention of doing so. I would if there was a serious problem with the thread by some problem posters, but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not yet.

I asked you a fair question. I noticed that someone else backed me up in wanting to know the answer to the same question. Your inability to answer the question, and continue a tirade against me further indicates my belief that you cannot provide evidence to your belief in this theological position of yours, and it is way out in left field outside of the realm of orthodox Christianity. I don't have to demonstrate that to you. You know that. All the posters here know that. It is an odd belief. So when asked directly about your belief, to provide evidence for it, you attack me instead. That puts a big question mark about the validity of your theology, and your character. If you continue in this vain, you will only find yourself in deeper trouble.

I suggest you get back to the debate at hand. If you can't answer my question or the question's of others, stop with the personal attacks, say you can't answer them, and use a little humility. Your personal attacks will not be tolerated.

 

oh, I do hold to second Coming of Jesus, at which time the jewish people still alive will "mourn for him they had pierced" and turn to messiah Jesus and be healed/restored at that time...

Jesus will set up His millinual Kingdom upon earth, satan bound 1000 yrs, and before all that happens the Body of Christ alive would have received a physicalresurrection into glorified bodies!

 

Greetings InTheLight

Dear IntheLight,

I’ve never crossed paths with you here before so let me start by saying good day and thanks for your interest in preterism.

I started eschatological life as a premisl dispy, but when I realized the apostles were full preterists I decided I had better change my view to align with theirs.

I enjoy defending preterism and if you are honest in your question (and I’m assuming you are) then you will find many and growing resources to explain the preterist model for you. Preterists resources are growing like wild fire in Christian eschatology. However don’t believe everything you read about it by some of the non preterists posters—even when they have honest intentions they make huge mistakes.

However to now go back and post an answer to that in this thread seems a lot like kowtowing to DHK’s bullying and as a matter of principle I will have to ask your forgiveness in not rewarding bullying in this thread.

I ask for your patience and understanding and I’m sure if you wish to follow my posts on this board I’ll be providing such answers as do many other fine preterists posters.

We welcome your interest and look forwarding to answering all your questions.

Sincerely,

Logos1

 

That was Easy

John of Japan challenges:
“Fine. Prove it. I'll seek truth, and then believe your truth when you present it. Show from the Greek, or quote a scholar or lay out the Scriptures--anything but just bald statements with no proof, which is what you are doing now.”

Child’s play--so I found one, but if I produced a million it wouldn’t matter to John because if you disagree with his position then he thinks you don’t understand Greek. We don’t have to be Greek scholars to grasp enough Greek to see the error in some of John’s assertions. In the end it’s not really about Greek at all, but a particular slant on theology (and against preterism).

Here is the link so you can read the whole post by Dr. Kelly Birks.

http://worldwithoutend.info/wwewp/?p=235
Actually this is the first time I’ve heard of Dr. Birks so I don’t know if I agree with eveything he says or not (like all Baptists or futurists not all preterists agree with one another completely) but I find his comments on aer vs ouranos spot on.


So John let me thank you for helping me to find yet another Preterist resource—I plan on reading more of his work and the material found on his site.

And with no further ado here is a copy and paste of just part of the material on this page: (I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest John will disagree with Dr. Birks)

Arndt and Gingrich- “A Greek- English Lexicon of the NT and other Christian Literature” on Pg. 109 of the 1979 edition, give the basics of the word harpazo as, “snatch, seize, take suddenly and vehemently. To grasp something quickly, eagerly, with desire.” The lexicon includes the idea of force in the action: Paragraph 2, a. “To seize or claim for one’s self ”: Paragraph 2, b.
What stands out so clearly in all of the major (and minor) lexicons is that nowhere is it stated that the word “harpazo” contains within it the any additional phrasing for “up” (anotello, ano, etc). All we would need to find in order to substantiate the “up” or “away” sense that traditionally has been added to the meaning, is to locate a word formed like, “anoharpazo”, or some such. But there is no such compound word that would verify the “up” or “away” sense that commentators have assigned to the word. Assigned without lexical “etymological” authority apart from the author’s own comments, I might add. Now to the primary text at hand….
1 Thess. 4: 17.
“Then we which are alive and remain shall be ‘caught’ (harpazo- no “up” “away” etc, indicated in the syntax of the text nor in the Greek word itself), together with them in the clouds (a cloud coming reference to divinity appearing- i.e. Jesus is divine. See Dr. Randall Otto’s work, “Coming in the Clouds”), to meet the Lord (‘meet’ is “apantesis’, Moulton and Milligan in their Greek Grammar, vol. 1, pg. 14, say, “It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary.”), in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Critical to an understanding of the text at hand is the word “air” from the Paul’s use of the Greek, AER. (Pronounced, “ear.”)
Strong’s Greek Dictionary, entry 109, defines it as:
From “aemi”, to breath unconsciously, to respire. By analogy, to blow.
(1) The air, particularly the lower and denser air as distinguished from the higher and rarer air.
(2) The atmospheric region.
Please note Strong’s root definition followed by the primary meaning of the word that Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4: 17. It is in reference to the “place” of respiration. The idea of the exchange of oxygen within ones immediate sphere, is what is the associative understanding. Paul is not saying that we meet the Lord in the harpazo, in our lungs! Understand what Paul is driving at. He is speaking of a spiritual meeting with the Lord, “within” ourselves. Within our spirits. Why did he use this particular form of explanation here? So that the Thessalonians, who could not conceive of the nature of the harpazo at Christ’s Parousia in the least (and we don’t do a very good job of it either), would begin to grasp that the meeting with the Lord was to be a personal meeting “within” the believer. Each believer was to have his or her own meeting with the Lord. If Paul had meant to communicate that this meeting was of a physical nature relative to joining the Lord in a place high above the planet surface, which Strong refers to as the place of “rarer” air (thinner air, high above the planet), then he would in all likelihood have used the Greek word “ouranos”. This is the primary word for the sky high above. The place of rarer air. There would have been no misunderstanding whatsoever if he had used ouranos. “Ouranos”: “To lift, to heave.”- Vines, Pg. 548. Paul chooses the more spiritually descriptive word AER, in order to communicate the primary defined meaning that Strong actually gives us. Christ would meet the believer within. It is an analogous to ones spirit that is within their body.
John Noe (a colleague of Mr. Stevens) sees this in his work, “Your Resurrection Body and Life”. On Pg. 52 he says, “For believers alive today, this gathering is still relevant. It takes place in the spirit realm, ‘in the air’ inside you (Strong’s # 109-author),that is, your spirit. Rapturists, as we outlined in chapter one, have failed to differentiate this AER ‘air’ inside you from the ‘ouranos’ air up in the sky. Consequently, they have also failed to apply a spiritual sense to Paul’s symbolic language. They insist this is a vanishing act by living Christians into outer space. How absurd! This ‘air’ is the heavenly realm of the spirit. And we are spirits.”
Paul’s use of the Greek words “harpazo” and “aer” in 1 Thess. 4: 17, clearly then places the traditional idea of physical bodies rising off of the planet surface and into the heaven above, into the arena of the unlikely, if not the impossible. Had Paul meant to clearly communicate that believers would rise physically off the planet surface and into the sky above the planet, he would have used the Greek word “ouranos” which has no argument within it whatsoever as to it’s “the-sky-above”, meaning.
What about the NT use of the Greek word AER that we have been alluding to?
The Greek word AER is used seven times in the NT.
(1) Acts 22: 23, “And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the AER…”
Ever tried to throw dust into the air? Try it and see how high up you can get it. Not very high I assure you, (especially if there is a breeze). This is the point for Luke using the word AER here in Acts 22: 23 as opposed to “ouranos.” The Jews could only get it as high as their immediate sphere. Perhaps a few feet at best. It would have been within the space that contained the air that they themselves were breathing.
(2) 1 Cor. 9: 26, Paul says, “…so fight I not as one who beats the AER.” Here, he uses a boxer’s terminology for comparing the discipline of athletics with the discipline of the Gospel work of preaching. How far do you think the boxer could swing at the air? No further than the length of his arms, right? He boxed within his immediate sphere. Why did Paul not use the word “ouranos” to describe the actions of a boxers training? Simply because it would have been ridiculous to do so. Neither the boxer nor the participant in the harpazo would reach into nor elevate off into the heavens above the planet. There is a specific reason as to why Paul used AER to describe the nature of the harpazo event.
(3) 1 Cor. 14: 9, As Paul instructs the Corinthians in true and false tongues, he teaches them that without speaking words in a language that everyone could understand, they would merely be “speaking into the AER.” Paul did not want the Corinthians to think that their words would be heard high above the city, up into the upper atmosphere. But rather, that those within their immediate sphere would be able to hear. Those who shared the same “aer”. That which was a part of their respiration (Strong’s #109). It was something to be experienced within their immediate sphere.
(4) Eph. 2: 2 Speaks of Satan being the “Prince and Power of the AER.” His realm was the arena of the spiritual, not the physical. He related to people within the sphere of their spirit, and not in the physical heavens above. His power was over the unregenerate mans life, not the molecules within the created carbon based system. His battle was over the lives of men and not over upper ether “real estate.” After Paul says that Satan was the Prince of the AER, he speaks that he (Satan) was the spirit, “that now works in the children of disobedience.” Again, the arena of Satan’s power was over the lives of men in an inner sense.
(4) 1 Thess. 4: 17. (Already covered).
(6-7) Both Rev. 9: 2, and 16: 17 speak in highly symbolic terms concerning the fact that in Johns vision (which is highly apocalyptic in nature and should only be pressed for literalism when the context demands it,) he says he sees the AER darkened and the angel pouring out his vial into the AER… Was the angel “really” pouring out a literal “bowl” containing something physical into the sky above? Of course not. As is typical with the use of the word AER, it is a reference to the realm of the spirit, as Noe points out, that is the arena of the angel’s dealings.

If you want to read the whole article Dr. Birks does an excellent job of destroying the rapture and making other preterists points, but that is beyond the point here—I’m showing the bias of John’s greek bias in his war on preterism. But for those of you interested here again is the link.

http://worldwithoutend.info/wwewp/?p=235

 

DHK You Make an Unconvincing Victim

Attempts at bullying--that I'm convinced of.

Only in your head is disagreeing with you a personal attack on you. I challenge you to find even one example where I have made a personal attack on you or anyone else.

Threats are no way to defend your position, but when logic and scriptural support are lacking you don't seem to hesitate to go there.

I know the difference between sincerity and stubbornness in theology.

I saw your post else where putting words in the mouth of preterists so to compare them to J.W.--(again how is it that I find with ease on these boards what you claim you don't know about--is it laziness or denial) what you can't come by honestly you are inventing.

As for such wild assertions as denying the trinity (again I find these things)--I've not seen one preterist yet here or else where who has suggested such things as you wish to manufacture. Every preterists I've read or heard from glady embrace the trinity--is this a special priviledge of the monitors to put words in the mouth of those they disagree with?

You can't find any examples of when I've tried to put words in someone's mouth or accused them of being guilty of what I want to see them guilty of.

Who monitors the monitorers and lets you get away with these tactics.

I'll say up until now I've thought the monitors here were respectful, fair, decent in their dealings with others, and administer the board with good judgment which makes it a pleasure to post here (disagreements are not a bad thing they make life more interesting than it would be if we all agreed all the time). DHK has let his personal bias against preterism prejudice his judgment, objectivity, and even handedness.