Revelation is not about the FUTURE

asterisktom said:

If it was years ago then, yes, my view has changed quite a bit. Since that time I have realized that most of full preterism is a form of gnosticism, under the influence of what I call the Pope of Preterism, Don K. Preston. I don't have time to write now, but I probably wrote things I shouldn't have. I don't remember exactly what I wrote.

Click to expand...

Growth is always good. I checked out Preston's web site. Some weird stuff on there.

asterisktom said:

I don't remember quitting a discussion. I was in China at the time and frustratingly Internet would be gone for days at a time. Also, in the university I taught in technicians went to all the foreign teachers's apartments and "upgraded" our already slow computers. Probably spyware, because after that they really crawled.

Click to expand...

Kudos for teaching in that benighted land. I have always loved the Chinese--went to Japanese language school with many of them, and currently have Chinese students, but it would be really tough to live and work there.

asterisktom said:

At any rate I have no problem with James 2:26. What was your point there that may (or may not) rattled my cage?

Click to expand...

You said at that time that the 2nd Coming had occurred in AD 70 (or 66, or whatever), and that it had been a spiritual coming. I pointed out that if Jesus had only come spiritually--in the spirit, that is--then His body would be dead in Heaven according to James 2:26. You didn't like that--felt I was misrepresenting your preterism or something. Glad to hear that now you believe it was a "real and visible coming of a real Person." But was it physical? And you said it was visible, so who saw it?

John of Japan said:

Growth is always good. I checked out Preston's web site. Some weird stuff on there.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I have had ongoing debates with him over the years now. Among other monstrosities Preston does not believe that Christians now have or even need the Holy Spirit in their lives. And it shows in his teaching.

John of Japan said:

Kudos for teaching in that benighted land. I have always loved the Chinese--went to Japanese language school with many of them, and currently have Chinese students, but it would be really tough to live and work there.

Click to expand...

I miss some of my students. Best teaching job I ever had. I was told that I must not talk about God in my class. So, in several classes, I told them "I am not allowed to talk about God in this class"! A great door-opener, I can only hope.

John of Japan said:

You said at that time that the 2nd Coming had occurred in AD 70 (or 66, or whatever), and that it had been a spiritual coming. I pointed out that if Jesus had only come spiritually--in the spirit, that is--then His body would be dead in Heaven according to James 2:26. You didn't like that--felt I was misrepresenting your preterism or something. Glad to hear that now you believe it was a "real and visible coming of a real Person." But was it physical? And you said it was visible, so who saw it?

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, Sepher Yosippon, and others who describe signs in the sky in AD 66? The Bible did not record this as an historical event - though it did as a future event - because by AD 66 the canon was closed.

My believing that Jesus came as a real person does not mean that I see Him as physical now. And the saints in the next life will have bodies but not physical bodies. In that regard, at least, "we shall be as the angels".

asterisktom said:

Agreed. I have had ongoing debates with him over the years now. Among other monstrosities Preston does not believe that Christians now have or even need the Holy Spirit in their lives. And it shows in his teaching.

Click to expand...

And a bunch of other weird doctrines.

asterisktom said:

I miss some of my students. Best teaching job I ever had. I was told that I must not talk about God in my class. So, in several classes, I told them "I am not allowed to talk about God in this class"! A great door-opener, I can only hope.


Are you familiar with the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, Sepher Yosippon, and others who describe signs in the sky in AD 66? The Bible did not record this as an historical event - though it did as a future event - because by AD 66 the canon was closed.

Click to expand...

I am. But I see very little congruency between those hazy (not in the Bible, not in church history books that I have) events and the book of Revelation. Where were the meteors, the creatures from the abyss, the third part of mankind dying, etc., etc.? And the date of AD 66 is very handy for the preterist, despite the fact that I only know one single scholar who agrees with that, and he is a liberal. No, the correct date is 95-96, as all evangelical scholars of the book agree. The only way the preterist can avoid the implications of Revelation to their position is to join the liberal and date the book before AD 70.

asterisktom said:

My believing that Jesus came as a real person does not mean that I see Him as physical now. And the saints in the next life will have bodies but not physical bodies. In that regard, at least, "we shall be as the angels".

Click to expand...

Now that is a big problem for you. When Jesus appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, He clearly told them in Luke 24 that he was not a "spirit," but ate to prove he was flesh and blood.

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

And in John 20:27 He told Thomas to touch His physical body: "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." There is no "in-between" existence in the Bible--not a spirit but not physical.

You have accused other full preterists of Gnosticism, but your position on this certainly sounds like Gnosticism, which postulated various "demiurges" between God the spirit and man the physical.

As for the angels, if they do not have physical existence, how could Jacob wrestle with an angel for hours, then have the angel tell him to let him go? I was a wrestler for 5 years in high school and one college tournament, and wrestling is the most physical thing I have ever done. You can't wrestle (and you can't eat) unless you are physical.

John of Japan said:

And a bunch of other weird doctrines.

I am. But I see very little congruency between those hazy (not in the Bible, not in church history books that I have) events and the book of Revelation. Where were the meteors, the creatures from the abyss, the third part of mankind dying, etc., etc.? And the date of AD 66 is very handy for the preterist, despite the fact that I only know one single scholar who agrees with that, and he is a liberal. No, the correct date is 95-96, as all evangelical scholars of the book agree. The only way the preterist can avoid the implications of Revelation to their position is to join the liberal and date the book before AD 70.



Now that is a big problem for you. When Jesus appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, He clearly told them in Luke 24 that he was not a "spirit," but ate to prove he was flesh and blood.

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

And in John 20:27 He told Thomas to touch His physical body: "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." There is no "in-between" existence in the Bible--not a spirit but not physical.

You have accused other full preterists of Gnosticism, but your position on this certainly sounds like Gnosticism, which postulated various "demiurges" between God the spirit and man the physical.

As for the angels, if they do not have physical existence, how could Jacob wrestle with an angel for hours, then have the angel tell him to let him go? I was a wrestler for 5 years in high school and one college tournament, and wrestling is the most physical thing I have ever done. You can't wrestle (and you can't eat) unless you are physical.

Click to expand...

The bodily (a physical body) resurrection of Jesus from the dead is essential and central to the gospel message.

Scripture More Accurately said:

The bodily (a physical body) resurrection of Jesus from the dead is essential and central to the gospel message.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. R. A. Torrey wrote in the famous "Fundamentals," the set of books that laid the theological foundation for fundamentalism (which at that time included all of evangelicalism), "While the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Christian doctrine, it is also the Gibraltar of Christian evidence, and the Waterloo of infidelity and rationalism" (one volume version of The Fundamentals, Grand Rapids: Kregel, p. 296).

Scripture More Accurately said:

The bodily (a physical body) resurrection of Jesus from the dead is essential and central to the gospel message.

Click to expand...

We have a family emergency just come up so I am not sure when I can get back to this. But I do want to.

However I absolutely need to clear one thing up. Christ certainly rose bodily, flesh and blood. If not, our faith is in vain. But that does not mean that Christ has a physical body now. His Incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension before His disciples were all part of "the days of His flesh", Heb. 5:7.

John of Japan said:

And a bunch of other weird doctrines.

I am. But I see very little congruency between those hazy (not in the Bible, not in church history books that I have) events and the book of Revelation. Where were the meteors, the creatures from the abyss, the third part of mankind dying, etc., etc.? And the date of AD 66 is very handy for the preterist, despite the fact that I only know one single scholar who agrees with that, and he is a liberal. No, the correct date is 95-96, as all evangelical scholars of the book agree. The only way the preterist can avoid the implications of Revelation to their position is to join the liberal and date the book before AD 70.



Now that is a big problem for you. When Jesus appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, He clearly told them in Luke 24 that he was not a "spirit," but ate to prove he was flesh and blood.

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

And in John 20:27 He told Thomas to touch His physical body: "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." There is no "in-between" existence in the Bible--not a spirit but not physical.

You have accused other full preterists of Gnosticism, but your position on this certainly sounds like Gnosticism, which postulated various "demiurges" between God the spirit and man the physical.

As for the angels, if they do not have physical existence, how could Jacob wrestle with an angel for hours, then have the angel tell him to let him go? I was a wrestler for 5 years in high school and one college tournament, and wrestling is the most physical thing I have ever done. You can't wrestle (and you can't eat) unless you are physical.

Click to expand...

We have a family emergency just come up so I am not sure when I can get back to this. But I do want to.

However I absolutely need to clear one thing up. Christ certainly rose bodily, flesh and blood. If not, our faith is in vain. But that does not mean that Christ has a physical body now. His Incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension before His disciples were all part of "the days of His flesh", Heb. 5:7.

asterisktom said:

Best teaching job I ever had. I was told that I must not talk about God in my class. So, in several classes, I told them "I am not allowed to talk about God in this class"! A great door-opener, I can only hope.

Click to expand...

ok, so what was said after that?

Blank said:

ok, so what was said after that?

Click to expand...

Some students visited us in our apartment on campus. With them we had a better opportunity to share the Gospel. I certainly wasn't going to do it in the classroom, each of them having, as I found out, spies sent from the office.

asterisktom said:

My believing that Jesus came as a real person does not mean that I see Him as physical now. And the saints in the next life will have bodies but not physical bodies. In that regard, at least, "we shall be as the angels".

Click to expand...

MOD NOTE: When the Bible says that "we shall be as angels" - it's from the words of Christ, himself. in Matthew 22. He is speaking to the Sadducees and referring to marriage. That's as clear as a bell. They were trying to trick him about marriage and the resurrection as they did not believe in the afterlife. Jesus told them that they were wrong because they did not know the scriptures.

Jesus was NOT saying that we shall BE angels or that we shall have no resurrected bodies.

1 Corinthians 15 teaches clearly that we will have incorruptible bodies and immortal bodies in heaven - bodies that never get sick and never die.

Job says in Job 19 that "in my flesh, I'll see God".

Let's stop the unbiblical teaching that there will be no bodies in heaven and that Christ has no body.

Scarlett O. said:

MOD NOTE: When the Bible says that "we shall be as angels" - it's from the words of Christ, himself. in Matthew 22. He is speaking to the Sadducees and referring to marriage. That's as clear as a bell. They were trying to trick him about marriage and the resurrection as they did not believe in the afterlife. Jesus told them that they were wrong because they did not know the scriptures.

Jesus was NOT saying that we shall BE angels or that we shall have no resurrected bodies.

1 Corinthians 15 teaches clearly that we will have incorruptible bodies and immortal bodies in heaven - bodies that never get sick and never die.

Job says in Job 19 that "in my flesh, I'll see God".

Let's stop the unbiblical teaching that there will be no bodies in heaven and that Christ has no body.

Click to expand...

I wish you would read more carefully what I wrote. I never said that there are no bodies in heaven. There are, but they are spiritual bodies, not physical. I never taught that there are no resurrected bodies.

"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." I Cor. 15:44
And, concerning Job:

The “see[ing] God” does not come in the flesh, but from the flesh. In other words, Job is not voicing a confidence that he will, in some future time, have a fleshly body with which he will see God. He is saying that even after his body will be destroyed he will still – afterward – see God. The destruction of his body will have no bearing on his assurance of seeing God.

“The literal meaning is, “from, or out of, my flesh shall I see God.” It does not mean in his flesh, which would have been expressed by the preposition ב (b) – but there is the notion that from or out of his flesh he would see him;”

It cannot be proved that this refers to the resurrection of that body, and indeed the natural interpretation is against it.”
– Barnes

“And after this skin of mine is destroyed I will yet, without flesh, see God.” – Luther (translated from the German)

Both of these points I went in greater detail because they help do away with core objections against the Preterist understanding of both human nature and of the resurrection.

Our blessed hope does not include eternal life in physical bodies, however glorified. We will have perfect spiritual existence,individual and corporate. This is neither (as I have been accused) gnosticism or Eastern pantheistic oversoul existence. It is plainly what the Bible teaches. To get to the proof of this – and it admittedly is a slow and painstaking process – one must first deal with each and every passage that seems to teach otherwise. These two verses in Job are prime candidates, seeing that they are often quoted to teach what they pointedly do not teach.

asterisktom said:

We have a family emergency just come up so I am not sure when I can get back to this. But I do want to.

Click to expand...

May God watch over your family.

asterisktom said:

However I absolutely need to clear one thing up. Christ certainly rose bodily, flesh and blood. If not, our faith is in vain. But that does not mean that Christ has a physical body now. His Incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension before His disciples were all part of "the days of His flesh", Heb. 5:7.

Click to expand...

I have to say that no offense is meant, but this is one of the most bizarre interpretations I have ever heard of any Bible passage. Hebrews 5:7-10 is very obviously an idiom referring to His time on earth, in particular His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane, not what His body appeared as. I've never heard of this interpretation, and am pretty sure I never will again. Do you have any cross references for this, or is it built on that one single verse?0 Do you have any commentaries or theologies to point to that teach your view?

John of Japan said:

May God watch over your family.

I have to say that no offense is meant, but this is one of the most bizarre interpretations I have ever heard of any Bible passage. Hebrews 5:7-10 is very obviously an idiom referring to His time on earth, in particular His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane, not what His body appeared as. I've never heard of this interpretation, and am pretty sure I never will again. Do you have any cross references for this, or is it built on that one single verse?0 Do you have any commentaries or theologies to point to that teach your view?

Click to expand...

Thank you very much. It is my wife's family and I just bought plane tickets for tomorrow for South Carolina. Pretty expensive, but these things happen.

I agree that the teaching does appear bizarre. But that in itself should not automatically disqualify it from consideration. And, no, I did not form this doctrine form a single verse. Several others help my case. Consider 1 Cor. 15:47:

“The first man is of the earth (ἐκ γῆς), earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) .”


This passage is a continuation of verse 40: somata epigeia and somata epourania now become “ek ges” and “ex ouranou”. This preposition (ek, ex) showing origin. Adam came from the earth, from the dust. This brings to mind the very passage from Genesis. The “Second Adam” came from heaven.

Note: In both cases, the origins determine the essence of who these two are – and (v. 48) the essence of their “followers”.


Verse 49 says that “we shall [or “let us”] bear the image of the heavenly man” (the Second Adam, from heaven).


We shall be like Christ.
And what is Christ like – according to this passage? He is like He was before He came to Earth. He is spiritual in body.
Was Christ fleshly before he came here to Earth? No. He was Spirit, right?
We – according to this passage – will also be like Him.
Spiritual bodies. Spirits of just men made perfect, as we are told in Hebrews.

We cannot have part Adam’s essence (“dust”) and part Christ’s, seeing that we could not then “enter into the Kingdom of God”, 1 Cor. 15:50. “Dust” has to do with “flesh and blood”, not spirit.

asterisktom said:

I agree that the teaching does appear bizarre. But that in itself should not automatically disqualify it from consideration. And, no, I did not form this doctrine form a single verse. Several others help my case. Consider 1 Cor. 15:47:

“The first man is of the earth (ἐκ γῆς), earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) .”


This passage is a continuation of verse 40: somata epigeia and somata epourania now become “ek ges” and “ex ouranou”. This preposition (ek, ex) showing origin. Adam came from the earth, from the dust. This brings to mind the very passage from Genesis. The “Second Adam” came from heaven.

Note: In both cases, the origins determine the essence of who these two are – and (v. 48) the essence of their “followers”.

Click to expand...

Having heaven as the origin of something does not establish that the essence of that thing must be non-physical.

Jesus taught the fathers ate manna that the Father gave them from heaven:

John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

John 6:31 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν τὸ μάννα ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καθώς ἐστι γεγραμμένον, Ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν.

The origin of the manna was from heaven (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), and it was physical food.

Scripture More Accurately said:

Having heaven as the origin of something does not establish that the essence of that thing must be non-physical.

Jesus taught the fathers ate manna that the Father gave them from heaven:

John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

John 6:31 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν τὸ μάννα ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καθώς ἐστι γεγραμμένον, Ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν.

The origin of the manna was from heaven (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), and it was physical food.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point, the connection between those verses, 1 Cor. 15:47-49. This is then followed up with the application in v. 50, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God".

The progression of Paul's argument is from "that which is natural", v. 46 to "of the earth, made of dust", v. 47 "earthy" and "image of the earthy", vss. 48-49. These all lead to the "flesh and blood" of vs. 50.

Verse 50, contrary to some Bibles I have seen and sermons heard, is not a new paragraph or topic. It is the conclusion of his careful prior reasoning. And the force of the argument is not at all in that one word "ek". Neither did John 6 draw anything deeper out of the misguided complaint of those disbelieving Jews. I suggest you carefully read again those verses in 1 Cor. 15:46-50..

asterisktom said:

“The literal meaning is, “from, or out of, my flesh shall I see God.” It does not mean in his flesh, which would have been expressed by the preposition ב (b) – but there is the notion that from or out of his flesh he would see him;”

Click to expand...

Quotation from Job by Hywel Jones (Evangelical Press Study Commentary, 2007)
'First, and most doctrinally significant, is the preposition 'in', which introduces 'my flesh;' this would be better rendered ''from my flesh.' The ESV includes an alternative rendering as a footnote, and this is 'without my flesh.' The difference between the two readings is obvious and, seeing that it is so great, someone might well wonder whether one and the same Hebrew expression can have both readings. But the fact of the matter is that both renderings are accurate. The question that is inevitably raised is whether Job is referring to a sight of God 'from within' his flesh or 'from without' his flesh - that is, when he is in a disembodied condition.'

Jones goes on to explain that in the light of the three fold reference to 'seeing in vs. 26-27, it is Job's physical eyes that are meant here. However, he takes the view that Job looked forward to seeing God in his earthly lifetime, which of course, is what actually happened (Job 42:5), but that seems unlikely to me in the light of his expectation that his Redeemer would 'stand at last upon the earth' (v.25b). It seems far more likely to me that it refers to the Last Day when Christ returns, and that therefore Job would see him with the eyes of a resurrected body.

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 1 Cor 15:44

Was Jesus of Nazareth put in the earth, a natural [ ψυχικόν] [soulish], (breath belonged of) body or a spiritual currenting to] body?

V's 45,46 YLT [Scripture 4All] (Westcortt and Hort)
so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature [soul], (a one to a breathing),' the last Adam , for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural [soulish] (breath belonged of), afterwards that which is spiritual. (currenting to belonged of)

Was the body of Jesus of Nazareth different pre and post resurrection as to what gave the body life?

Before resurrection, life in the blood.
After resurrection a life giving spirit, body.

percho said:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 1 Cor 15:44

Was Jesus of Nazareth put in the earth, a natural [ ψυχικόν] [soulish], (breath belonged of) body or a spiritual currenting to] body?

V's 45,46 YLT [Scripture 4All] (Westcortt and Hort)
so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature [soul], (a one to a breathing),' the last Adam , for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural [soulish] (breath belonged of), afterwards that which is spiritual. (currenting to belonged of)

Was the body of Jesus of Nazareth different pre and post resurrection as to what gave the body life?

Before resurrection, life in the blood.
After resurrection a life giving spirit, body.

Click to expand...

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Lk. 24:39).

Post-resurrection, Jesus said that he had flesh and bones and was not a spirit. Undeniably, His resurrection body was a physical body.

He did not mention anything about His being flesh and blood.