Featured Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

Once again, I'll delete the juvenile SW references and the empty rhetoric.

Heb. 8:13 is talking about the covenant that began with Christ's death and resurrection--the reason why the NT is the NT. So?

Yes, it is drawing near. So? The truth is, this verse could refer to 70 AD (and maybe it does) and have no effect on my theology at all.

You're proof texting. Try exegesis.

Once again, the preterist has the same problem as the futurist in these time statements. Hebrews was written 50-60 AD. Even if it was written in 60 AD, that is still ten years until 70. Same problem with the time statements for both of us.

Besides, it says "the coming one will come." But you think He only came spiritually. Sorry. "Every eye shall see Him" (Rev. 1:7) but no one saw Him in 70 AD.

The Corinthians were written in 51-52 according to Carson, Moo & Morris. That makes it almost 20 years until you think He came. Once again you have a time statement problem, whether or not you admit it. Is 20 years "very short"? Not in any way shape or form. The obvious answer is that Paul was taught to expect Christ at any time, and encouraged others to do so. If we expect Him at any time with will live righteous lives as John urged: "2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet 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. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" (1 John 3:2-3)."

 

Omitting the trash talk:

I have no problem with this. The resurrection body is a spiritual body constructed of something besides flesh and blood, something far better. But it is still a physical body. The resurrected Christ is not a disembodied spirit as you think. It is a different kind of body, but still a body.

For example, 1 Cor. 2:15 (But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.) is referring to a living believer with flesh and blood, yet he is spiritual. See also 3:1, 14:37, etc.

Are you paying attention? I pointed out that was present tense and did not rule out Christ's kingdom being of this world inthe future. Think man. You had bonehead English did you not? Remember that present tense? (And this time I'm not even invoking the Greek, even though it is a continuative present.)

So you do realize you are proof-texting. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Omitting the extraneous material:

You preterists are the only people I know who think ten years is "soon." Wriggle all you want, preterists have a time statement problem. But maybe that's because preterists do not believe in literal interpretation. They take upon themselves the Holy Spirit's prerogative to interpret.

"Mable, I'm leaving, but I'll be back soon, maybe in ten years or so." Yeah, right, "soon." :laugh: :tongue3:

Yes, this is a point for my side. There is no mention of the destruction of the temple in Revelation for good reasons.

In Ch. 1 we have the resurrected Christ. No need for mention of the temple there. Ch. 2-3 are about 7 churches nowhere near Jerusalem. It would be strange if these passages were about the temple. Revelation is a book of prophecy after ch. 3, so starting there is where the destruction of the temple should be mentioned if it were in the future. But nowhere in 3-22 is the destruction of the temple prophesied. If Revelation were written before 70, it would be very strange if the destruction of the temple were not mentioned, because Christ Himself prophesied it while He was on earth and this is the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Well, duh, it's prophecy! So this is talking about a future temple, not the one destroyed in 70 AD. This fits my premil position perfectly!

And your point is what? You think the Jews all of a sudden stopped persecuting the churches in 70 AD?

Guess what. I believe that an "apostle" is simply a church-planting missionary. So of course there were apostles well after 70 AD, and in fact there are apostles in the 21st century. In fact, the Didache mentions apostles in its day, and it is usually dated the end of the 1st or the beginning of the 2nd century.

Um, I did say, "Out of time." I'm a missionary pastor. Saturday is my busiest day. But it's Sunday evening, and I have taken time to answer every one of your points from Revelation. :type:

 

False, there is absolutely scripture that supports Jesus would return after a long period of time.

Mat 25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

Mat 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

 

Oh, my. You are the pot calling the kettle black. And I was not casting insults. I was commenting on your boorish and unchristian-like behavior.

 

John of Japan has pointed out that 30 years is a long time. He did so by saying it is not near. Secondly, it is the evil servant that says the Lord delayeth his coming.

For me Christ did return in judgment in AD70 as pointed out by many of the verses cited. I have no problem with the views of Demar and Gentry and pretty much havee gone to lean to their position. Once one accepts their views, then full preterism becomes a factor to consider. After spending several years flirting with it I finally came to the conclusion that I was just not convinced enough to go full board. John of Japan has pointed out some of these reasons in other posts (mello) for example.

I would ask those who reject partial preterism because of their rejection of full preterism to not throw out the baby with the bath wash. Time statements do matter.

 

Have you not thought that maybe your insults don't serve you well? They have given people a bad impression of you and several have said so on this thread. You should learn from Tom. I disagree with his doctrine, but he is a gentleman.

Insults are always personal.

And I always try to do my best for my Savior and when discussing the Word of God.

Thank you.

 

You mean you really don't see these statements in Post #4 as insults?

And you really don't see these statements in Post #10 as insults?

And you really don't see these statements in Post #22 as insults?

And you really don't see these statements in Post #41 as insults?

I'm going to stop there so I don't overload the post.

So you can say I have no depth in the Word of God, you can say I twist the Scriptures, you can say there are places in the Bible I don't like, you can accuse me of "cherry picking the Scriptures," and you can attack my honesty. And then you think none of those things are insults?

Frankly, my feelings are fine with this, and I'm not really mad or upset, because I figured out that most of the content your posts are simply "trash talking." I've simply been arguing around those parts of your posts. That way I'm actually able to interact with you in a sensible way without responding to your trash talk. And my use of the term "trash talk" is a rebuke. And taking the time to figure out and post this one is also a rebuke. I'm hoping you'll see what you are doing wrong and take it to heart.

When I was a junior high and high school wrestler in the 1960's we were taught mutual respect. We had to shake hands at the beginning of every match. We weren't allowed to taunt or verbally attack our opponent. We were taught that what counted was our skills and strength, not our mouth. Maybe it's the poor ethics of this generation, I don't know, but in recent years in the NFL they've been using a new term, and giving penalties for "taunting" as a form of unsportsmanlike conduct. I urge you to reconsider your debating method and prove your position by exegetical skills, leaving out the trash talking and taunting.

 

Full preterism makes a liar out of the Author of the Bible; therefore, full preterism is a false doctrine at best and has even been labeled a heretical doctrine by many.

Full preterism denies the resurrection of the body. Scripture teaches the resurrection of the body. God through the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Church at Corinth tells us why the resurrection of the body is necessary:

1 Corinthians 15:1-6
1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

The Apostle here is simply reviewing for these folks the truth of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, a body that was seen by all the Apostles, except Judas, and then by 500 believers at the same time. The Gospels make clear that this body was not a spirit or an apparition, though Paul will tell us later in the chapter that the resurrection body is a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

There you have it folks, in good old King James English; the resurrection of all the dead. But the story is the same in whatever language it is written. {Not that I have read all but the Bible is the Word of God!}

The above Scripture is crucial to the validity of our salvation. If there is no resurrection of the dead then Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ was not raised. If there was no resurrection of Jesus Christ then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins. The Apostle Paul tells us in his letter to the Church at Rome that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ established the validity of the incarnation and the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

So you see folks the semantic meanderings of "word-1" above are not insignificant, they strike at the very heart of the Gospel.

Without the resurrection the cross is just another tragedy in a world full of tragedies and we are still in our sins and are of all people most miserable and deluded. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact and one great and glorious day:

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, KJV
16. 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:
17. 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.

 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the biggest hinderance to Full preterism.

 

The implications of this statement are pretty big. Can you explain what you mean?

 

Read post 22. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that if the dead are not resurrected then Jesus Christ was not resurrected. If Jesus Christ is still in the grave then there is no Gospel. But He is not in the grave, the Gospel and the resurrection of the dead are Biblical truth, and that truth when refutes Full Preterism!

 

the dead have already been resurrected--it was not only the body but the SOUL that was resurrected(read other post about life and death)SOUL death was the death passed from adam to allmankind--we have no need for a resurrection today--the FINAL ENEMY (SOUL -DEATH) had been taken care of and today NNE dies a SOUL DEATH-only bodily

 

Well, Logos1 just posted a big long harangue about how attacking someone's character is not insulting and if you confront someone about it that is whining. My quote here his post is the whole of what he said that was worth responding to. The rest was empty rhetoric. All I can say is, he doesn't respond well to rebuke.

Prov. 10:19--"In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise."

 

Death, physical and spiritual, was passed from Adam to all mankind. The Salvation provided by Jesus Christ regenerates the soul dead in sin. The resurrection at the Second Coming will give life to the body of those who die in Jesus Christ. Those who die in unbelief, in Adam, will be resurrected and cast into the Lake of Fire along with Satan! That is the second death.

 

I keep thinking about this in the midst of all the rest of the hoopla, and I think it is completely bogus. Logos1 accused futurists of being lazy, but I think he is being lazy here, probably repeating something he read on the Internet without actually checking it out. There is nowhere near this number of time statements about the return of the Lord. In fact, I defy him to find even a dozen.

There are four statements of "quickly" in Revelation that the preterissts like to invoke (3:11, 22:7,12,20), but those speak of the manner of His coming and not strictly a time statement but rather statements of the kind of action (adverbs, not adjectives like "soon"). There are occasional statements of imminency, which I have no problem with. For almost 2000 years now we have know to expect the coming of the Lord at any time, but imminency and immediacy are not the same. Even including these two possibilities (manner of coming and imminency) I doubt if he can find a whole dozen time statements.

Beyond that, as I have pointed out, preterists have the same problem as any other view on the time statements. His only answer? Ten years can be soon! Yeah, right. :smilewinkgrin: