Would Full Preterism be seen as heresy?

[asterisktom]

Acts This SAME Jesus shall return

I John We shall be as He is when He appears!

Aah, two verses. I guess you point in the first verse is that future tense, obviously meaning that His coming is still future. By the same logic I can quote Isaiah 7:14 and prove that the Virgin will, also in our future, conceive, and bear a son.

I have no problems with your second verse either, although I cannot see your point.

 

[robycop3]

No one can do that because it cannot be supported by the teaching of the Bible. Those who believe that train of thought (the modern preterist movement) cannot be taking the words of the Bible seriously. If they did (take the words of the Bible seriously) they wouldn't come up with something so ridiculous.

I cannot of course see into the heart and soul of another but perhaps some might be ashamed to say that God will do in the future what seems impossible today, so they settle for much less, thinking that preterism is a way out of believing the unlikely. It is after all, easier to make fun of people, or agree with those who make fun of others, than to be made fun of.

Prets remind me of "Flat-Earthers" in that "wisdom is justified by her children".

 

[robycop3]

I have been doing that. It just does not register with you.

Nupe. What doesn't register is the pret interps of certain Scriptures because those interps are false.

The events simply haven't yet happened, & you can't show us they have!

If you insist they have:

Who was the beast & his sidekick the false prophet? (Remember, they are individuals as Scripture says they'll be thrown alive into the lake of fire.)

When did the beast enter the temple in Jerusalem & set up his statue? When did the FP make it speak?

When did he issue the mark of the beast & what did it look like?

That's just for STARTERS !

 

[John of Japan]

The literal, physical coming of Christ is a fundamental of the faith. The entire evangelical movement, which later split into fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism, held to the fundamentals of the faith. There were a couple of different lists, but they always had the literal, physical coming of Christ. The famous series of books called "The Fundamentals" had three essays that taught this. So yes, full preterism is a denial of a fundamental of the faith. It is also a huge error in Christology; John taught that teachers who erred in Christology were to be avoided (2 John 9-11).

It's very simple to disprove the full preterist idea that the coming of Christ in AD 70 was only spiritual. Thus, it if that coming was not physical, then Christ has not really come yet. asterisktom and I use to tangle on this point, and when I used the Greek to disprove this so-called spiritual coming, he told me I relied too much on the Greek. Funny, I always thought that the NT was written in Greek. Don't know how Tom decided the Greek was not important.

Anyway, rather than belabor the point, I'll simply make one point from the Greek, though I have made many others in the past here on the BB. The word Greek parousia (παρουσία) is used in 24 verses of the NT. It always--ALWAYS--means a physical coming or presence. For examples, see 1 Cor. 15:23, 16:17, 2 Cor. 7:6-7 (twice), Phil. 1:26 & 2:12, etc. It occurs four times in Matt. 24 alone to refer to the 2nd Coming of Christ, but also in 1 Thess. 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, and many other times. Therefore the 2nd Coming of Christ is still future and still physical, since the preterist admits that Christ did not come physically in AD 70.

P. S. asterisktom believes that Christ no longer has a physical body--that somehow the Incarnation has been reversed, though he doesn't say how that stupendous event happened. So when Christ "came" in AD 70 He just came as a spirit. And by the way, "spiritual" in the Bible does not refer to being "a spirit" but speaks of things of and pertaining to the spirit. Where did Christ leave His wonderful resurrection body? Preterists don't know! But "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). So somewhere in Heaven, perhaps, the dead body of Christ is enshrined like that of Lenin in Moscow? Naw.

 

[robycop3]

The literal, physical coming of Christ is a fundamental of the faith. The entire evangelical movement, which later split into fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism, held to the fundamentals of the faith. There were a couple of different lists, but they always had the literal, physical coming of Christ. The famous series of books called "The Fundamentals" had three essays that taught this. So yes, full preterism is a denial of a fundamental of the faith. It is also a huge error in Christology; John taught that teachers who erred in Christology were to be avoided (2 John 9-11).

It's very simple to disprove the full preterist idea that the coming of Christ in AD 70 was only spiritual. Thus, it if that coming was not physical, then Christ has not really come yet. asterisktom and I use to tangle on this point, and when I used the Greek to disprove this so-called spiritual coming, he told me I relied too much on the Greek. Funny, I always thought that the NT was written in Greek. Don't know how Tom decided the Greek was not important.

Anyway, rather than belabor the point, I'll simply make one point from the Greek, though I have made many others in the past here on the BB. The word Greek parousia (παρουσία) is used in 24 verses of the NT. It always--ALWAYS--means a physical coming or presence. For examples, see 1 Cor. 15:23, 16:17, 2 Cor. 7:6-7 (twice), Phil. 1:26 & 2:12, etc. It occurs four times in Matt. 24 alone to refer to the 2nd Coming of Christ, but also in 1 Thess. 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, and many other times. Therefore the 2nd Coming of Christ is still future and still physical, since the preterist admits that Christ did not come physically in AD 70.

P. S. asterisktom believes that Christ no longer has a physical body--that somehow the Incarnation has been reversed, though he doesn't say how that stupendous event happened. So when Christ "came" in AD 70 He just came as a spirit. And by the way, "spiritual" in the Bible does not refer to being "a spirit" but speaks of things of and pertaining to the spirit. Where did Christ leave His wonderful resurrection body? Preterists don't know! But "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). So somewhere in Heaven, perhaps, the dead body of Christ is enshrined like that of Lenin in Moscow? Naw.

Also, did any antichrist send an army against a spirit? And did every eye see a spirit?

And, did He split the Mt. of Olives in two, leaving a great gulf between the halves ? And that area has been inhabited since when Jesus ascended. If every eye saw Him, how come nobody reported it ?

 

[John of Japan]

Also, did any antichrist send an army against a spirit? And did every eye see a spirit?

And, did He split the Mt. of Olives in two, leaving a great gulf between the halves ? And that area has been inhabited since when Jesus ascended. If every eye saw Him, how come nobody reported it ?

Bingo! If preterists are right, there is a ton of unfulfilled prophecy that will never be fulfilled.

Every single prophecy of the Incarnation of Christ, His First Coming, was fulfilled literally. Therefore, it is as obvious as the nose on a Preterist face that all of the prophecies of the 2nd Coming of Christ will be fulfilled literally. And a "spiritual" coming is not one of those.

P. S. I have to add just one more line. The Incarnation was dramatically prophesied in the OT. Where in the world is any prophecy of Jesus losing His body? A de-incarnation if you will? Such a de-incarnation would come under necessary doctrines of Christology (2 John 1:9-11 again).

 

[robycop3]

Bingo! If preterists are right, there is a ton of unfulfilled prophecy that will never be fulfilled.

Every single prophecy of the Incarnation of Christ, His First Coming, was fulfilled literally. Therefore, it is as obvious as the nose on a Preterist face that all of the prophecies of the 2nd Coming of Christ will be fulfilled literally. And a "spiritual" coming is not one of those.

P. S. I have to add just one more line. The Incarnation was dramatically prophesied in the OT. Where in the world is any prophecy of Jesus losing His body? A de-incarnation if you will? Such a de-incarnation would come under necessary doctrines of Christology (2 John 1:9-11 again).

And Jesus did NOT say the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple were part of the great trib.

 

[Yeshua1]

Aah, two verses. I guess you point in the first verse is that future tense, obviously meaning that His coming is still future. By the same logic I can quote Isaiah 7:14 and prove that the Virgin will, also in our future, conceive, and bear a son.

I have no problems with your second verse either, although I cannot see your point.

none have yet been physically resurrected in their glorified state, as Jesus not yet had His second coming!

 

[Yeshua1]

The literal, physical coming of Christ is a fundamental of the faith. The entire evangelical movement, which later split into fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism, held to the fundamentals of the faith. There were a couple of different lists, but they always had the literal, physical coming of Christ. The famous series of books called "The Fundamentals" had three essays that taught this. So yes, full preterism is a denial of a fundamental of the faith. It is also a huge error in Christology; John taught that teachers who erred in Christology were to be avoided (2 John 9-11).

It's very simple to disprove the full preterist idea that the coming of Christ in AD 70 was only spiritual. Thus, it if that coming was not physical, then Christ has not really come yet. asterisktom and I use to tangle on this point, and when I used the Greek to disprove this so-called spiritual coming, he told me I relied too much on the Greek. Funny, I always thought that the NT was written in Greek. Don't know how Tom decided the Greek was not important.

Anyway, rather than belabor the point, I'll simply make one point from the Greek, though I have made many others in the past here on the BB. The word Greek parousia (παρουσία) is used in 24 verses of the NT. It always--ALWAYS--means a physical coming or presence. For examples, see 1 Cor. 15:23, 16:17, 2 Cor. 7:6-7 (twice), Phil. 1:26 & 2:12, etc. It occurs four times in Matt. 24 alone to refer to the 2nd Coming of Christ, but also in 1 Thess. 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, and many other times. Therefore the 2nd Coming of Christ is still future and still physical, since the preterist admits that Christ did not come physically in AD 70.

P. S. asterisktom believes that Christ no longer has a physical body--that somehow the Incarnation has been reversed, though he doesn't say how that stupendous event happened. So when Christ "came" in AD 70 He just came as a spirit. And by the way, "spiritual" in the Bible does not refer to being "a spirit" but speaks of things of and pertaining to the spirit. Where did Christ leave His wonderful resurrection body? Preterists don't know! But "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). So somewhere in Heaven, perhaps, the dead body of Christ is enshrined like that of Lenin in Moscow? Naw.

The Second Coming of Jesus has the Kingdom of God ushered in total on this earth, and has all redeemed gloried and risen, were those events recorded down to us anywhere AD 70?

 

[Yeshua1]

Bingo! If preterists are right, there is a ton of unfulfilled prophecy that will never be fulfilled.

Every single prophecy of the Incarnation of Christ, His First Coming, was fulfilled literally. Therefore, it is as obvious as the nose on a Preterist face that all of the prophecies of the 2nd Coming of Christ will be fulfilled literally. And a "spiritual" coming is not one of those.

P. S. I have to add just one more line. The Incarnation was dramatically prophesied in the OT. Where in the world is any prophecy of Jesus losing His body? A de-incarnation if you will? Such a de-incarnation would come under necessary doctrines of Christology (2 John 1:9-11 again).

How cam Jesus return as the same Jesus, if no longer in that gloried body rose again in?

 

[asterisktom]

How cam Jesus return as the same Jesus, if no longer in that gloried body rose again in?

Was He the same Jesus during the Old Testament time? Did He have a physical body then?

 

[asterisktom]

The Second Coming of Jesus has the Kingdom of God ushered in total on this earth, and has all redeemed gloried and risen, were those events recorded down to us anywhere AD 70?

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that all the redeemed - of all ages - would be glorified in AD 70. All the redeemed living and who had ever lived up to that time were indeed glorified. But ever since then we have our glorification when we die.

 

[Yeshua1]

Was He the same Jesus during the Old Testament time? Did He have a physical body then?

was not even Jesus before the Incarnation!

 

[Yeshua1]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that all the redeemed - of all ages - would be glorified in AD 70. All the redeemed living and who had ever lived up to that time were indeed glorified. But ever since then we have our glorification when we die.

Must have been done in silence as we have NO record of that ever happening in history!

 

[Revmitchell]

Any denial of a future' physical, and literal return of Christ is heresy

 

[thomas15]

One of the big problems of boldly proclaiming something that is not true is one becomes a prisoner of their mistakes. It takes real guts to move beyond, admit a mistake.

The second problem for some is they are ashamed to embrace the actual words of the Bible. This is an actual teaching of the Bible: "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Luke 9:26

 

[thomas15]

The second coming of Jesus, as others have mentioned, will be the epic event of the age, so big and so glorious that every single person living on the planet will see it and the historians will not be able to ignore it.

 

[asterisktom]

was not even Jesus before the Incarnation!

" Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58

Jesus is clearly referring to Himself. And He is called Jesus in this very verse. How can it be any clearer?

 

[asterisktom]

Any denial of a future' physical, and literal return of Christ is heresy

Bible verse please.

 

[asterisktom]

Must have been done in silence as we have NO record of that ever happening in history!

Inspired Scripture ended before the Parousia. Any record of that after the fact would be uninspired so how conclusive would it be?