Some Standing Here

[asterisktom]

I agree that the parousia WILL be an invisible event. But one must think it through. If it happened at 70 A.D., or at any time before, then what would have been the consequences?
No matter what the date of the writing of Revelation, it is a historical fact that John was alive in the 90's and probably died in the second century. Was he left behind?
If all the believers were taken up during the parousia (rapture as I understand it), then Christianity would have died out right then and there. No one would have been left to carry it on. There would be no witnesses; no one to evangelize.
How do you account for these things.

There is no rapture as it is popularly conceived, so there is no physical separation, no group being physically left behind. The Kingdom was to come without observation.

And, yes, evangelism continues to this day. People are still coming into His kingdom every day.

 

[asterisktom]

To me, full preterists aren't lepers, there are just people wandering around without a clear mission or any idea what comes next according to Scripture. I asked Tom how that evangelism is affected by what you believe about A.D. 70 and he never answered. Does anyone that is a full preterist have the answer?

I did answer your question and you saw what I wrote.
I know you saw my answer because you answered it. So don't say "I never answered".

For the record - again: evangelism is very necessary today. People are coming into the Kingdom every day.

Here in China I think of myself as an ambassador for Christ much more than a citizen of America. And I am thankful for opportunities here. I am not "wandering around". I am quite clear on my mission. As God gives me grace and strength, I hope to have many more years to do it.

 

[DHK]

There is no rapture as it is popularly conceived, so there is no physical separation, no group being physically left behind. The Kingdom was to come without observation.

And, yes, evangelism continues to this day. People are still coming into His kingdom every day.

What do you mean by "parousia"?
What kingdom came in the first century?
And most important of all, in Acts chapter one, when the disciples asked Jesus, when the kingdom will come:
Jesus answered, "It is not for you to know..."
How then would you know that the kingdom came if it is not for them to know, especially since John lived all through the first century and never gave evidence that it came.

 

[asterisktom]

What do you mean by "parousia"?
What kingdom came in the first century?
And most important of all, in Acts chapter one, when the disciples asked Jesus, when the kingdom will come:
Jesus answered, "It is not for you to know..."
How then would you know that the kingdom came if it is not for them to know, especially since John lived all through the first century and never gave evidence that it came.

John did not live "all through the first century". Far from it. If you want, I can dig up the references for this.

By "parousia" I mean exactly what Scripture means by the word. It does not come with observation. The first age was different than the "age to come". It was necessarily visible and visual, pointing to the more real things to come. Those earthly copies, types and shadows pointed to spiritual things that we enjoy now.

As far as "It is not for you to know..." we need to keep audience- and time-relevance in mind.

 

[John of Japan]

By "parousia" I mean exactly what Scripture means by the word. It does not come with observation. The first age was different than the "age to come". It was necessarily visible and visual, pointing to the more real things to come. Those earthly copies, types and shadows pointed to spiritual things that we enjoy now.

Actually, parousia (parousia) is a completely observable, physical event in Greek. Lightning is observable (Matt. 24:27), the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus was observable (1 Cor. 16:17), the coming of Titus was observable (2 Cor. 7:6-7), the coming of Paul was observable (2 Cor. 10:10, Phil. 1:26 & 2:12). In the apocryphal literature of the LXX, the word is used for physical presence in Judith 10:18 (a woman), 2 Mac. 8:12 (the army), 2 Mac 15:21 (an army with elephants before them) & 3 Mac. 3:17 (King Ptolomy Philopater).

In other words, there is not a single provable usage of the word parousia in the literature in which the presence was not observable. Parousia refers to a physical, observable presence. Christ's coming will be observable, just as lightning is (Matt. 24:2).

Even more specifically, "p. became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp. of kings and emperors visiting a province" (entry for parousia in the BAGD lexicon, p. 630). Christ's appearing will be a physical appearing, an official visit by a king. Again, it is "a technical term for the visit of a king" (entry in Abbot-Smith lexicon, p. 347).

 

[asterisktom]

Actually, parousia (parousia) is a completely observable, physical event in Greek. Lightning is observable (Matt. 24:27), the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus was observable (1 Cor. 16:17), the coming of Titus was observable (2 Cor. 7:6-7), the coming of Paul was observable (2 Cor. 10:10, Phil. 1:26 & 2:12). In the apocryphal literature of the LXX, the word is used for physical presence in Judith 10:18 (a woman), 2 Mac. 8:12 (the army), 2 Mac 15:21 (an army with elephants before them) & 3 Mac. 3:17 (King Ptolomy Philopater).

In other words, there is not a single provable usage of the word parousia in the literature in which the presence was not observable. Parousia refers to a physical, observable presence. Christ's coming will be observable, just as lightning is (Matt. 24:2).

Even more specifically, "p. became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp. of kings and emperors visiting a province" (entry for parousia in the BAGD lexicon, p. 630). Christ's appearing will be a physical appearing, an official visit by a king. Again, it is "a technical term for the visit of a king" (entry in Abbot-Smith lexicon, p. 347).

Off to work, but a short comment for now. Yes, parousia in Scripture has usages that refer to visible comings. By Scriptural usage I was referring to specific eschatological passages.

 

[Yeshua1]

Matthew 16-28:Verily i say unto you,There be some standing here,which shall not taste of death,till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Now dont do as the Heading above the verse and say its the Transfiguration,because in verse 27 he is plainly talking to them about coming with his angels and rewarding every man according to their works.
Also the Transfiguration was just in a few days from that time.
So this has no other meaning than SOME of the disciples being alive at his coming(we call rapture).OR if that is not what it meant,then some are still alive today!!!

Matthew 26-64:Jesus saith unto him(high priest from verse 63),Thou hast said:nevertheless I say unto YOU(High Priest),Hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,and COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN(what we call rapture).

this was just another verse to prove likewise--Jesus said the High priest would be alive and see him coming in the clouds of heaven.
So you have 2 verses here speaking to 2 different peoples involved that would be alive at his coming.

Now put matthew 24 and ALL THINGS BEING FULLFILLED before that generation passed away--and you have solid proof of his coming in their day and time(AD 70)

I think its enough proof just in those 2 verses and matthew 24--but there are alot of other scriptures which prove this same thing.
So how can you say that it is still to come and its been over 2k years and counting--are those people still alive???????????

he entered into His heavenly kingdom at his ascension, and the Second Coming will bring THAT Kingdom to earth , so all the earth will have the reign/rule of god directly upon it, when the King returns to physical establish his kingdom!

 

[OldRegular]

Matthew 16-28:Verily i say unto you,There be some standing here,which shall not taste of death,till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Now dont do as the Heading above the verse and say its the Transfiguration,because in verse 27 he is plainly talking to them about coming with his angels and rewarding every man according to their works.
Also the Transfiguration was just in a few days from that time.
So this has no other meaning than SOME of the disciples being alive at his coming(we call rapture).OR if that is not what it meant,then some are still alive today!!!

Matthew 26-64:Jesus saith unto him(high priest from verse 63),Thou hast said:nevertheless I say unto YOU(High Priest),Hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,and COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN(what we call rapture).

this was just another verse to prove likewise--Jesus said the High priest would be alive and see him coming in the clouds of heaven.
So you have 2 verses here speaking to 2 different peoples involved that would be alive at his coming.

Now put matthew 24 and ALL THINGS BEING FULLFILLED before that generation passed away--and you have solid proof of his coming in their day and time(AD 70)

I think its enough proof just in those 2 verses and matthew 24--but there are alot of other scriptures which prove this same thing.
So how can you say that it is still to come and its been over 2k years and counting--are those people still alive???????????

Your use of the passage from Matthew 16 proves nothing except that you do not understand it. In Matthew 12:28 Jesus Christ tells us: But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Now I ask you: Did Jesus Christ cast out devils. The answer is yes He did. Therefore, the Kingdom of God is come.

In John 3:3-5 Jesus Christ yells us:

3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Those who are "born again" enter the kingdom of God, not in the future but on the "new birth" because we also read in Scripture:

Colossians 1:12-13
12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

When are we translated into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? When we are "born again"!

Now unless you want to argue that God has multiple kingdoms your eisegesis of the passage from Matthew 16 is demonstrated to be just that.

As for your comment regarding Matthew 26:64 Jesus Christ is simply declaring his Deity to the high priest.

Regardless of what Scripture you pick out to prove whatever it is you are trying to prove you have to ignore the clear teaching of a general resurrection of all the dead, you have to ignore the clear teaching of Paul regarding the transformation of those living Saints when Jesus Christ return.

Even worse if you are trying to argue that the resurrection and transformation of the living believer occurred at a return of Jesus Christ in 70 AD then Jesus Christ took the Church, all the redeemed of all time, back to Heaven with Him and where does that leave us.

And where does that leave the Patriarch Job. He was convinced and told all future believers:

Job 19:25-27

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.

I do love that passage of Scripture. It is, or should be, a comfort to all believers!

 

[Bronconagurski]

I did answer your question and you saw what I wrote.
I know you saw my answer because you answered it. So don't say "I never answered".

For the record - again: evangelism is very necessary today. People are coming into the Kingdom every day.

Here in China I think of myself as an ambassador for Christ much more than a citizen of America. And I am thankful for opportunities here. I am not "wandering around". I am quite clear on my mission. As God gives me grace and strength, I hope to have many more years to do it.

I can only say what I know to be true. I asked you what the difference in evangelism would be between full preterists and dispys, and you never answered that I saw. If you did, please forgive me, I missed it, but it shouldn't take you long to tell me again if you would be so gracious.

 

[Amy.G]

For the Preterist,

Christ's return - Done

Kingdom - Done

Resurrection - Done

What's next?

 

[OldRegular]

For the Preterist,

Christ's return - Done

Kingdom - Done

Resurrection - Done

What's next?

That is a good question Amy.G, as usual. That to me is one of the troubling aspects of Full Preterism; What is next. As I understand FP their belief is that upon death the soul/spirit of the believer will spend eternity in Heaven and the body will return to dust.

However, that belief leaves unanswered the Scripture that teaches a resurrection of the body of all the dead. The inability of the FP doctrine to deal with these Scripture is the most troubling aspect of their teaching.

There is another problem, a what's next, with Full Preterism which I believe I mention to Tom some years ago. The universe is running down and that is a fact. The earth as it currently exists is not eternal, the energy of the sun and all stars is degrading. That is the inevitable conclusion of the primer law of Science. Now it is entirely possible that God can intervene in this process and recharge everything so to speak. In fact I have a book on Thermodynamics written by a man named Gordon Van Wylen who suggests this very thing. He is from Michigan and may himself be a Full Preterist. I don't know. But that is something that the Full Preterist can only speculate about since I don't believe Scripture deals with that problem. Of course we all know that all Creation is sustained by God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, parousia (parousia) is a completely observable, physical event in Greek. Lightning is observable (Matt. 24:27), the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus was observable (1 Cor. 16:17), the coming of Titus was observable (2 Cor. 7:6-7), the coming of Paul was observable (2 Cor. 10:10, Phil. 1:26 & 2:12). In the apocryphal literature of the LXX, the word is used for physical presence in Judith 10:18 (a woman), 2 Mac. 8:12 (the army), 2 Mac 15:21 (an army with elephants before them) & 3 Mac. 3:17 (King Ptolomy Philopater).

In other words, there is not a single provable usage of the word parousia in the literature in which the presence was not observable. Parousia refers to a physical, observable presence. Christ's coming will be observable, just as lightning is (Matt. 24:2).

Even more specifically, "p. became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp. of kings and emperors visiting a province" (entry for parousia in the BAGD lexicon, p. 630). Christ's appearing will be a physical appearing, an official visit by a king. Again, it is "a technical term for the visit of a king" (entry in Abbot-Smith lexicon, p. 347).

jesus came the first time as the servant of the lord, humble, as the Suffering Messiah, but at his Second coming, he will be accompanied by the Angels/Sainsts/Host of heaven ALL eyes shall see Him...

The Ftaher will show Him off as being then King of kings/Lord of Lords!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a good question Amy.G, as usual. That to me is one of the troubling aspects of Full Preterism; What is next. As I understand FP their belief is that upon death the soul/spirit of the believer will spend eternity in Heaven and the body will return to dust.

However, that belief leaves unanswered the Scripture that teaches a resurrection of the body of all the dead. The inability of the FP doctrine to deal with these Scripture is the most troubling aspect of their teaching.

There is another problem, a what's next, with Full Preterism which I believe I mention to Tom some years ago. The universe is running down and that is a fact. The earth as it currently exists is not eternal, the energy of the sun and all stars is degrading. That is the inevitable conclusion of the primer law of Science. Now it is entirely possible that God can intervene in this process and recharge everything so to speak. In fact I have a book on Thermodynamics written by a man named Gordon Van Wylen who suggests this very thing. He is from Michigan and may himself be a Full Preterist. I don't know. But that is something that the Full Preterist can only speculate about since I don't believe Scripture deals with that problem. Of course we all know that all Creation is sustained by God.

bible states that the Gospel shall be preached to all ends of the earth, and than the end shall come, no more need to missionary work, for Christ will return and all will be done...

Has that really happened as per Hyper preitierism states?

 

[asterisktom]

I can only say what I know to be true. I asked you what the difference in evangelism would be between full preterists and dispys, and you never answered that I saw. If you did, please forgive me, I missed it, but it shouldn't take you long to tell me again if you would be so gracious.

We are all sinners in need of God's salvation provided through Christ. We are very much in need of the Gospel message. This is the message I preach to unbelievers, whether in China or elsewhere. We are not able to save ourselves. I am not sure what else I should write. Perhaps you can ask about a certain point that you may think we may differ on.

 

[asterisktom]

For the Preterist,

Christ's return - Done

Kingdom - Done

Resurrection - Done

What's next?

Ah, another person speaking for Preterism, but not getting it quite right. The kingdom is not done, but very much ongoing - and growing.

What's next? According to Hebrews 9:27 we all still have personal encounter with God. Christians will be forever with the Lord.

There are doubtless other things in store for us personally, hard for us to grasp now.

 

[asterisktom]

That is a good question Amy.G, as usual. That to me is one of the troubling aspects of Full Preterism; What is next. As I understand FP their belief is that upon death the soul/spirit of the believer will spend eternity in Heaven and the body will return to dust.

However, that belief leaves unanswered the Scripture that teaches a resurrection of the body of all the dead. The inability of the FP doctrine to deal with these Scripture is the most troubling aspect of their teaching.

The key is in the terminology used - and not used - in Scripture. There is a difference between "resurrection of the body" and "resurrection of bodies". Take a close look at the relevant passages and see if there is any mention of the latter.

 

[Bronconagurski]

We are all sinners in need of God's salvation provided through Christ. We are very much in need of the Gospel message. This is the message I preach to unbelievers, whether in China or elsewhere. We are not able to save ourselves. I am not sure what else I should write. Perhaps you can ask about a certain point that you may think we may differ on.

Ok, then one's belief in full preterism has nothing to do with the way we both evangelize. That was the first point I made and you seemed to say it made a difference. I now see that it does not. I said that because if it does not make a difference, then we are spending way too much time on A.D. 70 and not enough on spreading the gospel.

 

[asterisktom]

bible states that the Gospel shall be preached to all ends of the earth, and than the end shall come, no more need to missionary work, for Christ will return and all will be done...

Has that really happened as per Hyper preitierism states?

This is not directed to me as I don't answer to that monicker.

 

[asterisktom]

Ok, then one's belief in full preterism has nothing to do with the way we both evangelize. That was the first point I made and you seemed to say it made a difference. I now see that it does not. I said that because if it does not make a difference, then we are spending way too much time on A.D. 70 and not enough on spreading the gospel.

The biggest difference, as I see it (I could be wrong), between the evangelism of (some) dispies and FPs is when the former elevate their eschatology to Christology and salvation doctrine. They make their endtimes doctrine be a crucial doctrine of their Gospel.

 

[Bronconagurski]

The biggest difference, as I see it (I could be wrong), between the evangelism of (some) dispies and FPs is when the former elevate their eschatology to Christology and salvation doctrine. They make their endtimes doctrine be a crucial doctrine of their Gospel.

I am sure you are correct about that, but there is no need to use the rapture being imminent, even though I believe so. People may or may not dismiss that teaching. But it is much more effective to use the mortality of humans and the fact that no one knows when they will die. That is what got my attention when I got saved. I had no clue about the rapture nor anything about eschatology.