Revelation is not about the FUTURE

Hazelelponi said:

Well honestly, since I thought saying "I agree" covered my views on the quoted verse I'm really not sure what you are seeking as an answer so I'll write an exposition.

You cited 1 Corinthians 15:50, where Paul declares, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." This verse, however, must be interpreted within the flow of Paul's broader argument concerning the resurrection body. He does not deny the physicality of the resurrection body but contrasts perishable, mortal, Adamic nature with the imperishable, glorified state wrought by union with Christ, the second Adam.

The Greek phrase "sarx kai haima" (σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα)—"flesh and blood"—is a Hebraic idiom, found also in Matthew 16:17 and Galatians 1:16, used metaphorically to describe the natural, fallen human condition, not materiality itself. Paul is not denying the resurrection of the body, but asserting the necessity of transformation—from corruptible to incorruptible, from dishonor to glory (1 Cor. 15:42–44).

Calvin, in his commentary, notes:



Spurgeon also stated:



Indeed, Romans 8:29 teaches that Christ is the prototokos (πρωτότοκος)—“firstborn among many brethren.” His resurrection body is the pattern and guarantee of ours. Luke 24:39–43 emphasizes the corporeality of the risen Christ. He ate broiled fish and honeycomb. He said, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." The Greek here is precise: "σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα" (flesh and bones)—not merely spirit, but transformed flesh.

Therefore, the glorified body is not a rejection of bodily form but its perfection. Berkhof rightly states in Systematic Theology:



We are not Gnostics, denying the goodness of the body. The Incarnate Word took on our nature—body and soul—and sanctified it. He rose in that same body, now glorified. To say otherwise is to drift toward the ancient heresy of Docetism or a form of hyper-preterism, both of which the early Church and Reformers firmly rejected.

[I am not accusing anyone of holding these positions, just stating the case,]

As for the "last day," Jesus Himself repeatedly speaks of the general resurrection at the end of the age in John 6:39-40, 44, 54—“I will raise him up on the last day.” That day is not merely a first-century Jewish context; it is the eschatological telos of redemptive history. Hebrews 9:28 speaks of His return “to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Let us then affirm, as the Church has always confessed, that we await “the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.” We will be like Christ—glorified and incorruptible.

I provided hyperlinks to commentaries and systematic theologies and sermons, but didn't hyperlink any of the Scriptures I quoted but will go through and do so if you like.

Hopefully, this explains my position on the verse in question to satisfaction. I did think "I agree" was just as satisfactory however.

Click to expand...

For the record, BTW, I am indeed what you would probably call a "hyper-preterist", though that term would be inaccurate. I just take the Word of God for what it says. Yes, there are metaphors and idioms. But more important than idiomatic usage is the actual context, something that I ever covered in the earlier parts of this thread.

"Let us then affirm, as the Church has always confessed, that we await “the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.” We will be like Christ—glorified and incorruptible."

I certainly do affirm it. Absolutely. But not because the church confessed it (and this is a vague phrase, begging at least three separate questions) but because I see it in Scripture. The church beat Luther on the head with their confessions and traditions. But he stuck to what he knew was true.

You miss my point. But never mind. That happens a lot here.

asterisktom said:

You miss my point. But never mind. That happens a lot here.

Click to expand...

If you're a full preterist it could impact your views, I don't know. I'm Amil, an historicist/idealist position largely. (I manage to combine it little of both).

I am a newer Christian and find a more difficult time with nuance in people's language. I am not catching some nuances people use.

I'm just now figuring out how to talk about faith to people In general.

Here, this board, is a more confusing place because everyone claims the same faith but no one seems to share it. It's confusing...lol.

I figure I have to learn these nuances. For me I think it means learning where they come from.

Hazelelponi said:

If you're a full preterist it could impact your views, I don't know. I'm Amil, an historicist/idealist position largely. (I manage to combine it little of both).

I am a newer Christian and find a more difficult time with nuance in people's language. I am not catching some nuances people use.

I'm just now figuring out how to talk about faith to people In general.

Here, this board, is a more confusing place because everyone claims the same faith but no one seems to share it. It's confusing...lol.

I figure I have to learn these nuances. For me I think it means learning where they come from.

Click to expand...

Well, I do appreciate your respectful attitude.

I was Amil for several years. And eventually became convinced on preterism. A book that really helped me was Russell's "The Parousia" (with a foreword by RC Sproul.)

asterisktom said:

certainly do affirm it. Absolutely. But not because the church confessed it (and this is a vague phrase, begging at least three separate questions) but because I see it in Scripture.

Click to expand...

Good morning! I decided I wanted to ask where specifically you think our point of difference is, since I'm missing your implicationn. Perhaps there's a way to try and clarify.

As a secondary note, since I'm more awake... Lol. I thought I would add some explanation.

My trust in God's people for a point of anchor is Biblical I think.

Every word of Scripture is prophecy, breathed out by God's Holy Spirit. We must handle this Word of God rightly, it's of the utmost importance, it's not a minor thing.

The Church (big C = God's true children throughout time) is to provide that point of anchor to prevent personal interpretation of Scripture (which is every confirmed word God breathed out in our direction). We are forth-tellers of prophecy, not foretellers but this is still all prophecy to my mind, even if old and not new.

I suppose for me it's about the importance of making certain I'm not off the reservation into mad craziness like false prophets are. It's something we must first guard against in ourselves.

In reading and learning from one another in the Spirit and submitting to the authority of the Church in interpretation, since no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation, we are submitting to God's authority over us.

I ran into someone recently who said he had an NDE and was off on a heretical mission to stop people from accepting the words of the New Testament.

We just want to avoid making such heretical errors which are made when we decide we might know better than God and His people throughout time, in order to ensure all our core doctrines are correct before God. God says we can differ in what's minor, but not what's major.

I'm not understanding perhaps how much full preterism breaks the story that's necessary to be seen but I admit being partial preterist for a decent amount of time before deciding Amil appeared most in line with Scripture.

But I do think we have to submit our interpretations first to the Church, not to ourselves.

We might find we are in the wrong church, one who themselves don't know God and to them we would be unable to submit - like when the Baptists said no, this is what the Bible states and so this only we will teach, no matter the cost - but when that occurred it was a revelation to a large portion of God's people who were confessing, in other words, though they differed with the predominant or prevailing opinions of the day, it wasn't just one or even a handful seeing God saying the same thing.

Therefore, it wasn't private interpretation thereby initiating the impetus of the faithful to change the institution or remove themselves from it as a body.

asterisktom said:

church beat Luther on the head with their confessions and traditions. But he stuck to what he knew was truth

Click to expand...

What church are you talking about?

Luther never got far enough away from the RCC in my opinion. He kept a lot of the pomp and circumstance, so much so they are in communion with the RCC today.

asterisktom said:

Well, I do appreciate your respectful attitude.

I was Amil for several years. And eventually became convinced on preterism. A book that really helped me was Russell's "The Parousia" (with a foreword by RC Sproul.)

Click to expand...

As judgemental as I sometimes think I sound, I'm really not a judgemental person.

Being predestinarian it's harder to judge the person. We all have a path to walk, I woke up sat in hell surrounded by demons, who am I to judge? it's just about encouraging positive direction in Christ. If I sound judgemental it's usually just me trying to get someone to wake up, but I'm learning to do that with a, Scripturally sound mind.

I probably won't read the book anytime soon, but if I get both time and opportunity I'll try and keep it in mind.

asterisktom said:

Along those same lines we might wonder what size God's "nostrils" are, Job. 4:9. Or we can realize that the Bible has much figurative imagery, both in the Old and New Testaments.

Click to expand...

You are confusing anthropomorphism with human physical parts. There is a huge difference there. Anthropomorphisms are clearly figures of speech. Can you prove that the human tear ducts can be figurative, even though we know they actually exist in the physical world? By what process do they become figurative?

asterisktom said:

I just got my wifi back yesterday, or I would have answered sooner. We are staying with and helping my ailing mother-in-law in Greenville, SC, her husband being in the hospital.

I am quite behind in several correspondences and here as well. But, looking at your above responses (plural) I am not sure if I would make any headway in getting you to come around to a more Biblical understanding. Also, your left-handed insult about me possibly "trying to trick" you doesn't bode well for respectful conversation. I have been nothing but honest with you.

Click to expand...

I apologize. I certainly did not mean it as an insult. But go back and look. I did not actually accuse you of trying to trick us. I would appreciate it if you actually answered the point I was making there.

You've been honest? Okay. But you have not been consistent. Either Christ is now in a "spiritual" body (whatever that is), your most recent statement, or He is in something between the physical and spiritual, which you said at first. You can't have it both ways.

Hazelelponi said:

If you're a full preterist it could impact your views, I don't know. I'm Amil, an historicist/idealist position largely. (I manage to combine it little of both).

I am a newer Christian and find a more difficult time with nuance in people's language. I am not catching some nuances people use.

I'm just now figuring out how to talk about faith to people In general.

Here, this board, is a more confusing place because everyone claims the same faith but no one seems to share it. It's confusing...lol.

I figure I have to learn these nuances. For me I think it means learning where they come from.

Click to expand...

Full pretierism denys the future Second Coming event, denies physically bodily resurrection, always been seen as a heresy

asterisktom said:

Well, I do appreciate your respectful attitude.

I was Amil for several years. And eventually became convinced on preterism. A book that really helped me was Russell's "The Parousia" (with a foreword by RC Sproul.)

Click to expand...

RC Was only partial pret though

JesusFan said:

RC Was only partial pret though

Click to expand...

Yes, that was never in doubt. But the admirable aspect of his foreword is that he did not deem Russell's preterism as heresy. Instead, he recommended the book as something worthy of consideration. That is all I ask.

My views are essentially the same as Russell's. Unfortunately, the older variant of Preterism is now a distinct minority thanks to the present Preterist heretics like Don Preston et al.