Any full preterists?

Eric B · May 10, 2004

The man of lawlessness was already at work. That puts him in the 1st century context. There are some who believe it to be one of the leaders of the Zealots.

That's the mystery of iniquity that was already at work; not the man of iniquity at that point. I don't think such a key figure would be so uncertain as to his identity. You'd be better off saying it was one of the emperors.

Grasshopper · May 11, 2004

I don't think such a key figure would be so uncertain as to his identity. You'd be better off saying it was one of the emperors.

I doubt it was uncertain to the thessolnians.

Grasshopper · May 11, 2004

Here are some sites critical of preterism.

http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/gentry_preterism.html

Kenneth Gentry is a partial-Preterist. He wrote the book,"Before Jerusalem Fell" which puts the dating of Revelation pre-AD70. I agree with most of what he beleives, but I find his "partial" view inconsistent.

Here are some additional sites:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/

http://www.eschatology.org/articles/articles.html

I think you will find a wide variety amoung Preterist. Not only denominationally but on preterist issues as well.

Ray Berrian · May 11, 2004

Grasshopper,

Your questions:

1. Do any saints come with Christ at the rapture?

No. Read I Thessalonians 4:13-18.

2. Are all the wicked resurrected at the end of the Mill.

Yes, Read Revelation 20:5 says, ' . . . the rest of the dead,' suggesting that the saved, dead will haven arisen from the dead before this time. It is only wise and logic that God would not raise the wicked dead until the very end of time. Thus we read, 'But the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years {plural} were finished.'

3. Does Christ come again at the end of the Mill.?

This is the order: Rapture, Great Tribulation and then Christ comes again to bring slaughter to the wicked in Israel at the time of His Second Coming. [Rev. 19:11 to the end of the chapter. After the Second Coming Christ will set up His earthly, sovereign, majestic Kingdom of God on this earth.

4. Does I Thess. 4 speak of the rapture or the second coming?

I Thess. 4:13-18 speaks of the Rapture, where Jesus comes for those who are ' . . . the dead in Christ' [vs. 16d] plus all living Christians who are alive at His coming.

5. Does the "church age" end at the rapture?

Yes. Christ will take us to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, not to be judged as to whether or not we are saved but for an evaluation as to what we have done for Christ while here, plus how obedient we have lived before Him in our life of sanctification and holiness.

6. Does 2 Thess. 1 speak of the church or Israel?

God will come from Heaven with His saints [Rev. 19:14] to judge sinners [II Thess. 1:8] ' . . . those that know not God, and those who refuse to obey the Gospel . . . . (who) will 'be punished with everlasting destruction {Hell}.

7. Does 2 Thess 1:4-7 speak of the Second Coming?

II Thess. 1:7-10 speaks clearly to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as noted in the words, ' . . . taking vengeance on those who know not God.' These are the living wicked people who are alive at His appearing. [Jude verse 15 & Revelation 1:7]

I Corinthians chapter fifteen is the resurrection chapter of the Bible. [vs. 49-58] Verse 51 indicates that Jesus will be coming for those who are 'asleep' in Jesus. The wicked dead are not raised from the dead because they have no inheritance of 'incorruption' 'immortality' nor is there 'victory' for lost sinners. [vs. 52-55] The Apostle Paul's admonition is toward his ' . . . beloved brethren' and that we are to ' . . . labor' for the Lord, our God; Paul has no comments about the sinful dead.

Grasshopper · May 11, 2004

1.Do any saints come with Christ at the rapture?

No. Read I Thessalonians 4:13-18.

4. Does I Thess. 4 speak of the rapture or the second coming?

I Thess. 4:13-18 speaks of the Rapture, where Jesus comes for those who are ' . . . the dead in Christ' [vs. 16d] plus all living Christians who are alive at His coming.

Verse 14 says Christ will bring saints with Him:

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him .

2. Are all the wicked resurrected at the end of the Mill.

Yes, Read Revelation 20:5 says, ' . . . the rest of the dead,' suggesting that the saved, dead will haven arisen from the dead before this time. It is only wise and logic that God would not raise the wicked dead until the very end of time. Thus we read, 'But the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years {plural} were finished.'

3. Does Christ come again at the end of the Mill.?

This is the order: Rapture, Great Tribulation and then Christ comes again to bring slaughter to the wicked in Israel at the time of His Second Coming. [Rev. 19:11 to the end of the chapter. After the Second Coming Christ will set up His earthly, sovereign, majestic Kingdom of God on this earth.

So all the wicked are raised at the end of the Mill. and Christ does not return at the end of the Mill. Then when does Caiaphus see Jesus coming in the clouds?

Matt 26: 64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

You have said it is not a 1st century event so he did not see it in his life time and he will not see it at his resurrection, so when and how will he see it?

7. Does 2 Thess 1:4-7 speak of the Second Coming?

II Thess. 1:7-10 speaks clearly to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as noted in the words, ' . . . taking vengeance on those who know not God.' These are the living wicked people who are alive at His appearing. [Jude verse 15 & Revelation 1:7]

Paul is speaking to the church:

2 Thessalonians 11 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ;

So Paul is saying that the Thessolonians will be relieved from persecution at His Second Coming. So if this is speaking of His coming then the persecution must be the Great tribulation that precedes His coming. But according to your view the church is not here during this period of time.
Why is Paul telling members of the church they will go through the great tribulation?

5. Does the "church age" end at the rapture?

Yes. Christ will take us to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, not to be judged as to whether or not we are saved but for an evaluation as to what we have done for Christ while here, plus how obedient we have lived before Him in our life of sanctification and holiness.

Lets compare the Olivet Discourse with I Thess.

Matt 24:29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I Thess 4:13 But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep.
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 that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

They are speaking of the same event. Notice the similarities:

1 Coming of the Lord/ son of Man:

2 With Angels:

3 trumpet

4 coming in clouds

5 gathering of the redeemed

6 generation/those who are alive

Matt 24 describes the end of the Jewish age, not the church age. Why would the disciples ask about the end of the "church age" when Jesus is describing the destruction of the Old Covenant Temple? Matt 24 and I Thess describe the ending of the Jewish age, not the Church Age, which had not even started yet at that time.

Ray Berrian · May 11, 2004

Grasshopper,

You said, 'Matt 24:29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days . . . '

This tribulation refers back to eight verses before your noted verse and it speaks of the Great Tribulation, which has never yet happened. How do we know this? Because no secular, Jewish or Christian historian speaks of this in their writings.

The Rapture is next, then the Great Tribulation, then the Second Coming of Christ and then the Millennimum.

Grasshopper · May 11, 2004

Read Luke's account for when the abomination of desolation was to occur, then read Josephus's "War of the Jews" to find out what went on during that war.

Am I to assume you have no responses to the other parts of the message?

Grasshopper · May 11, 2004

Two sites that advocate preterism are <http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/> and <http://www.preterism.info/>
The first for all purposes denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, on the page Does 1 Corinthians 15 Teach a Physical or a Spiritual Resurrection? <http://www.preterism-eschatology.co...Teach a Physical or a Spiritual Resur.htm>.

As I stated earlier Preterist don't agree on all issues. Here is an alternative view of the resurrection from one of the links above from a full-preterist that you might find more tolerable. The resurrection was the biggest hurdle for me and is still the one issuse I understand the least.

http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/A%20Critical%20Response%20to%20the%20Kloskes.htm

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/primer.htm

If you study Preterism long enough, you will see half the things written on that site are false. Many accusations would also apply to the futurist camp.

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/august99.htm

Here is a rebuttal of what was contained in the above article:

http://www.eschatology.org/articles/rebuttals/jackson.htm

Eric B · May 12, 2004

Verse 14 says Christ will bring saints with Him:

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him .

the saints rise out of the ground, (those alive join them), meet Christ in the air, and then return back down to the Mount of Olives with him. I, BTW, am not pre-trib, and this is something pre-tribbers argue with non pre-tribbers on as proving the saints were already raptured at His coming.

So all the wicked are raised at the end of the Mill. and Christ does not return at the end of the Mill. Then when does Caiaphus see Jesus coming in the clouds?

Matt 26: 64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

You have said it is not a 1st century event so he did not see it in his life time and he will not see it at his resurrection, so when and how will he see it?

Perhaps at the Great White throne at the end of the Millennium. Especially if you take "coming on the clouds" as symbolic of judgment, then this should be no problem. But at least they actually "see" Him, and "see" is emphasized a lot in these prohecies. If it was just the destruction of the Temple and captivity, death of Israelites, etc, then perhaps "feel" or "sense" would have been a better term.

Matt 24 describes the end of the Jewish age, not the church age. Why would the disciples ask about the end of the "church age" when Jesus is describing the destruction of the Old Covenant Temple? Matt 24 and I Thess describe the ending of the Jewish age, not the Church Age, which had not even started yet at that time.

Because we have not "met Him in the air". So the destruction of the Temple age was but the forerunner of the end of the "age" of sin and falleness in the world. Remember, the entire world was in sin and need of judgment, not just the Jews. It's just that the Jews' judgment would come first in the destruction of their system.

Eric B · May 12, 2004

Here is a rebuttal of what was contained in the above article:

http://www.eschatology.org/articles/rebuttals/jackson.htm

Actually, 1 Corinthians 15 is not written to counter the error of denying the resurrection of the physical body. This is the most egregious claim!

Jackson knows that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 presented part of his argument through presenting a series of implications. That is, he took what the false teachers were saying and turned it on them by showing that if they were right, then other doctrines, that they did not believe, must also be true. What were some of those implications?

Implication #1 — If the dead (dead ones, as Jackson admits) are not raised then Christ is not raised. Now those who were denying the "resurrection of the dead ones" did not deny the resurrection of Christ. Thus, they were not opposed to the idea of resurrection.
Implication #2 — If the dead (dead ones) do not rise, those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished. The false teachers did not teach that Christians were denied resurrection life! Thus, they did not deny resurrection. They simply denied resurrection life to some class of "the dead ones." Who was that?

It was that class of "dead ones" of which Christ by his resurrection was the first fruit. It was that class of people that had died before Christ died (1 Cor. 15:20)! Now if the false teachers did not deny the resurrection of Christ, and did not deny resurrection life to Christians, but Paul said that Christ was the first fruit of those who were being denied resurrection, who was it? It was the OT saints of Israel. Those in Corinth were denying the salvation of OT Israel (see Romans 11). Jackson is guilty of very serious error to claim that those in Corinth were denying resurrection as a fact.

Pretty nice trick. But the text does not say that they accepted the resurrection of Christ and Christians and denied only the resurrection of some. Look at v.12; "Now if Christ is preached that He rose from the dead, then how say mong you, that there is NO resurrection from the dead?" So he is taking the fact that he is preaching Christ is risen, and saying that if they do not believe that the dead rise (which would include Christ), then what they are preaching is a lie, and their faith is vain. The firstfruits are later mentioned simply as part of the order. Nowhere is it suggested that the firstfruits were the only people whom they denied resurrection.

Further, for Jackson to lay the charge of Sadduceism on proponents of Covenant Eschatology is a gross misrepresentation. The Sadducees did not believe in life after death. They did not believe in the human spirit (Acts 23). I personally do not know of any preterists that espouse such views. I personally affirm that after physical death, man has a sentient existence in the presence of God. Perhaps Jackson can explain how that is Sadduceeism.

Finally, what is "utterly incredible" is that Jackson willingly aligns himself with those who tried to kill Paul for his doctrine of resurrection. Jackson claims that the Pharisees and Paul both believed in the resurrection of the human body out of the ground. Well, if Paul and the Pharisees agreed on this doctrine, why did the Pharisees want to kill Paul for preaching the resurrection?

The record of Paul's trial before the Sanhedrin is very revealing, and somewhat misleading if one does not follow up on that trial as Paul goes from there to be tried before Felix. While on trial before the Sanhedrin, Paul perceived the division between the Sadducees and Pharisees. He claimed belief in the resurrection, saying that he was on trial for his belief in the resurrection. As a result, the Pharisees wanted to release him, just to spite the Sadducees. Thus, ostensibly, Paul and the Pharisees believed the same thing! It looks at first blush like Jackson has a point. However, looks are often deceiving, as they say.

Just seven few days later, Paul is now before Felix. But something has changed. Now, the Pharisees, who just a few days before said "We can find no fault with this man!" are now crying for his blood! Incidentally, we know that it was not the Sadducees that wanted him killed because Paul said his accusers also had the hope of the resurrection (Acts 24:15).

Now if the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, and if Paul taught the same thing about the resurrection that the Pharisees believed, why were the Pharisees now wanting to kill him, especially after declaring him a fine fellow just a few days before?[14] And isn't it strange, and sad indeed, that Jackson continues to align himself with the Pharisees, claiming that they and Paul taught the same thing? Paul and the Pharisees clearly did not teach the same thing about the resurrection, or the Pharisees would never have tried to kill him.

Jackson affirms that the Pharisees taught the resurrection of the physical body, just like he does. He also claims that Paul taught the same thing. This is patently wrong! Just who is it that Jackson will continue to align himself with, Paul, or the Pharisees who wanted to kill Paul?

I suggest that just as the Jews wanted a kingdom, but rejected Jesus when they discovered the kind of kingdom he was offering, likewise, the Pharisees, who desired the resurrection, and initially welcomed Paul, rejected him when they discovered the kind of resurrection he was preaching.

Jackson's doctrine simply has no proper explanation for the trial of Paul.

This is an argument made up from total silence on the subject. The writer even acknowledges that as late as 24:15, Paul still says they share the same hope of the "resurrection" with him. So this distinction between "they believed it was physical, Paul believed it was spiritual only, and that's why they now wanted to kill him" is totally fabricated. The scribes in the Pharisees' party said they found no evil in him. It doesn't say that all of the Pharisees were for him. Then, 3 verses later (23:12) some Jews banded together (doesn't say which sect, but this is evidence that it was both) to try to kill him. Then, when he is brought before Felix, he is accused of sedition. All along, it was "The Law" he was accused of going against, but the truth he preached concerning the Law is tied into the resurrection (which is a part of God's plan, just like the Law was), and while they both accepted the resurrection, what the Pharisees rejected was Christ, "the hope of Israel" (28:20), which Paul here tied with "the resurrection of the dead" (24:21). So there is not argument about "physical vs. spiritual". Another nice try, though!

The fact is, that the resurrection is of the same nature as the kingdom, the two concepts cannot be divorced from one another. The kingdom was to come at the time of the resurrection (Matthew 25:31f; 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 15, etc).

Further, the kingdom was to come without observation (Luke 17:20f), and the resurrection was not to be a physically discernable event either (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:6)! Speaking of the resurrection change Paul emphatically said, "We do not look on the things that are seen, but that are unseen." Jackson must demonstrate why the kingdom was/is spiritual in nature, and yet demands a physical parousia and resurrection.

Because the "kingdom" came in stages, with the present "spiritual only" state as our "downpayment". Then, the physical would be redeemed later. Even if you say that just dying and floating off to Heaven is the final fulfillment of "eternal life", then still, you have admitted to two stages of it, with this present life incomplete.

As a friend of mine is wont to say, "What's the problem?" Does Jackson not know that most preterists believe that all the wicked that were in Hades were raised from there and sentenced to Gehenna? What Jackson sets forth as a serious flaw in Covenant Eschatology is no problem, except to Jackson.

Once again, what scriptures really expound on this? If this "resurrection" and Gehenna in Rev.20 and elsewhere was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, then where do you get Gehenna as an eternal abode from, other than assuming a popular view?

In verses 6-7 of his vision, Daniel saw two angels. The one asked the other, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?" The wonders to which he refers definitely includes the resurrection of v. 2. The other angel responded by saying, "When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be fulfilled." There is no other event in history that qualifies as the destruction of the power of the holy people as does the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Once again, they were not completely shattered. The Jews continued to live on, and even though you all doubt that any Jews today are genuine, they still are here, and are setting up for the final fulfillment of that prophecy.

Jackson likes to make the point that the judgment of A.D. 70 was a localized judgment that would hardly have been of any interest or significance to those outside Judea. He likes to ask, "Were the people in South America judged in A.D. 70? By the way, what would the destruction of Jerusalem have meant to those people who were living in Athens, Greece? Paul says, 'Gentlemen, you had better repent.' Why? 'Because Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away is going to be destroyed in A.D. 70' They likely would have said, 'So what! What does that have to do with us?"[16]

The folly of Jackson's logic should be apparent. Let's just change one or two words in his argument that he considers so devastating: "Are the people in South America judged by the death of Jew in A.D. 33? By the way, what would the death of a Jew in Jerusalem have meant to those people who were living in Athens, Greece? Paul says, 'Gentlemen, you had better repent.' Why? 'Because this Jew was crucified in Jerusalem.' They likely would have said, 'So what! What does that have to do with us?" Jackson's argument is that unless something was universally apparent then it had no universal significance and meaning. This is pure foolishness.

Further, this argument overlooks the fact that Jesus himself said that the judgment of A.D. 70 was a universal event. Read Luke 21:25f:

"And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth (Greek ge, DKP) distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, (Greek, oikoumene, DKP) for the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."

So now he takes Christ's word at it that it is universal. After arguing that no, these events are only local.
Well, what impact does the death of a Jew in AD33 have on South America and the rest of the world? Salvation would eventually be brought to them when the Church spread out and reached them. Otherwise, it would have no impact on them. Nobody ever said Christ's death was for the local people only, though you would think so with everything else in the Bible (including judgment, mention of "the whole world", etc.) being made local. But when scriptures on judgment, signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; distress of nations, the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them from fear, etc. are taken and applied to Israel only, then yes, what does that have to do with the rest of the globe? Christ bring salvation to the globe. Does the destruction of the temple bring judgment to the globe? Once again, this position puts so-called "definite time statements" over definite scope statments, and now this writer is trying to reextend the scope even though he has already dismissed it.

Grasshopper · May 12, 2004

Perhaps at the Great White throne at the end of the Millennium. Especially if you take "coming on the clouds" as symbolic of judgment, then this should be no problem.

Yes, but you don't take it as symbolic. Your view says it is a literal happening. So when will Caiaphus see Jesus coming in the clouds with angels?

Because we have not "met Him in the air". So the destruction of the Temple age was but the forerunner of the end of the "age" of sin and falleness in the world.

So because it doesn't happen the way you believe it must, it is still future. What "age" are the disciples asking about? The one they are in, or a future age?

Because the "kingdom" came in stages, with the present "spiritual only" state as our "downpayment".

Where in the OT or from the words of Jesus does it state the Kingdom comes in stages. Again because it doesn't fit the futurist view it must be forced into stages.

Once again, they were not completely shattered. The Jews continued to live on,

It doesn't say the Jews were shattered, the POWER was shattered.

So now he takes Christ's word at it that it is universal. After arguing that no, these events are only local.

I believe he is making the point that the physical judgement was local, the spiritual judgement was universal.
Just as Christ crucifixtion was local His atonement was universal.

Ray Berrian · May 12, 2004

Grasshopper,

I do not think you are going to find in the Bible where you said, 'So when will Caiaphus see Jesus coming in the clouds with angels?'

I am your student; teach me.

Are you referring to Revelation 1:7?

Regards . . .

Grasshopper · May 12, 2004

I do not think you are going to find in the Bible where you said, 'So when will Caiaphus see Jesus coming in the clouds with angels?'

OK, no angels:

Matt 26:
57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together .
58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end.
59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death;
60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterward came two,
61 and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62 And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

Bro Tony · May 12, 2004

There is still a problem going this route. As was dealt with in another thread, Caiaphas was not alive in AD 70 so the "ye" in Matt 26:64 must not have been talking about him personally. It apparently was a prophetic statement concerning the return of Christ and not some mystical perusia.

Bro Tony

Grasshopper · May 12, 2004

There is still a problem going this route. As was dealt with in another thread, Caiaphas was not alive in AD 70 so the "ye" in Matt 26:64 must not have been talking about him personally. It apparently was a prophetic statement concerning the return of Christ and not some mystical perusia.

1.You never proved he died.
2.If you want the "ye" to be plural then go back to verse 57 to see whom Jesus was speaking.
3.What was Caiaphus to see? What did Jesus mean? What is the futurist interpretation of this verse?

Ray Berrian · May 12, 2004

Someone said, 'What was Caiaphus to see? What did Jesus mean? What is the futurist interpretation of this verse?'

Matthew 26:57-65 is dealing with a religious Israelite, High Priest, who believed on one God Jehovah, the Lord. The ironic thing about these events is that he did not believe that Jesus was Lord or Divine. Caiaphas asked Jesus to defend Himself about verse 61 & verse 63. Jesus did not say, "Yes, I am the Son of God but merely offered these words, 'Thou hast said.' Caiaphas knew that our Lord claimed to be Jesus and also Divine.

Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr., Th.D. and professor of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, in Winona Lake, Indiana said in his comments from St. Matthew, from "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary".

Quote: 'The Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven (cf. Daniel 7:13,14; Psalm 110:1). The pronouncement that the positions of Jesus and His judges would eventually be reversed.' (end quote)

Ray is saying along with Dr. Kent that one day in the future the roles of Caiaphas and Jesus will be reversed. Jesus, and not Caiaphas, will be seated in royal and Divine judicial authority over His life and eternal destiny. The name Caiaphas means 'depression.' He took the leading authority in the trial of Jesus our Lord. [Matt 26:3; 57-68 and John 11:49]

Jesus in His own words in John 5:22 & Revelation 20:4a,b,c; 20:11-15 declares that He-Himself will judge or evaluate every human persons life as to whether they will go to Heaven and everlasting life, or Hell and eternal torment. In this situation the role of Judge will finally be in the hands of Jesus Christ. This is a major part of what Jesus was saying during His trial in Matthew 26:64.

Again, there is no secular, Jewish or Christian historians that have penned the words-that Christ has already returned since His ascension into Heaven.

Grasshopper · May 13, 2004

Matthew 26:57-65 is dealing with a religious Israelite, High Priest, who believed on one God Jehovah, the Lord. The ironic thing about these events is that he did not believe that Jesus was Lord or Divine. Caiaphas asked Jesus to defend Himself about verse 61 & verse 63. Jesus did not say, "Yes, I am the Son of God but merely offered these words, 'Thou hast said.' Caiaphas knew that our Lord claimed to be Jesus and also Divine.

Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr., Th.D. and professor of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, in Winona Lake, Indiana said in his comments from St. Matthew, from "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary".

Quote: 'The Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven (cf. Daniel 7:13,14; Psalm 110:1). The pronouncement that the positions of Jesus and His judges would eventually be reversed.' (end quote)

Ray is saying along with Dr. Kent that one day in the future the roles of Caiaphas and Jesus will be reversed. Jesus, and not Caiaphas, will be seated in royal and Divine judicial authority over His life and eternal destiny. The name Caiaphas means 'depression.' He took the leading authority in the trial of Jesus our Lord. [Matt 26:3; 57-68 and John 11:49]

Thats very good intellectual twisting. It's also NOT what Jesus said is it? This is the problem with futurist, you force me to be literal but you are free to loosely interpret and tell me what Jesus really meant.

"Ye shall see me coming in the clouds"
Are you saying now that is not literal but figurative? If so you have completely changed your position. Wasn't it you that said that "see" means "see" in Rev 1:7?

Again you have both sides of an issue.

Eric B · May 13, 2004

Yes, but you don't take it as symbolic. Your view says it is a literal happening. So when will Caiaphus see Jesus coming in the clouds...?

I wasn't even saying it wasn't literal. Perhaps in the great White throne judgment, they will see Him in the clouds first. But if you take it symbolically, then this should be all the more a possible interpretation. Either way, with "see", this is a definite sense statment, (in addition to the definite scope statments; both of which are being subjected to the so-called "definite time statments". Even the true definite time statement, "1000 years", is subjected to these others).

So because it doesn't happen the way you believe it must, it is still future. What "age" are the disciples asking about? The one they are in, or a future age?

Because of the way I believe it must? If you don't have a legitimate other meaning for this, then why shouldn't we take it literally? It too is a definite sense statement.
They may have been thinking about the end of the Jewish age, but the whole point of the Gospel is it is not just the Jewish age that needed to end, but also the age of sin and the Fall. In all of those NT scriptures such as Rom.12:2 speaking of "the world" in a negative light, they were not referring to the Jewish age, but rather the age of sin in general, and it is still the same for us today. So Jesus tells them when the age would end, and typically it would refer to the Jewish age, but in the long run, that would be a shadow of the final end of the age.

Where in the OT or from the words of Jesus does it state the Kingdom comes in stages. Again because it doesn't fit the futurist view it must be forced into stages.

Where in the OT does it say there would be two comings of Christ? You can get a hint of it if you know what to look for, but still, everyone at first understood one coming. This is the dualist position (which acknowledges your AD70 events as types), not futurism, I am advocating, anyway. The Bible speaks of types and antitypes, and in fact, that is the theme of the entire Gospel, so you can't now take this AD70 event and exclude that as the one final thing.

I believe he is making the point that the physical judgement was local, the spiritual judgement was universal.
Just as Christ crucifixtion was local His atonement was universal.

But what "spiritual judgment"? The Bible speaks of judgment, your position takes it as referring to AD70, but then when asked what about the rest of humanity, then you come up with this "spiritual judgment? But where is that if everything is talking about AD70? Where does it say that everyone is judged by the destruction of the Temple in AD70? Actually, everyone is judged from their sin, since the Fall of Adam. The destruction of the Temple was the judgment of the Old Covenant system and the nation that held to it, and while it may prefigure the general judgment of the wicked (as a type, once again), you can't merge the two judgments into one. There is no scripture to support that (without reading it into verses), and it is only good to plug up one of the many holes left by the pure preterist position.

Ray Berrian · May 13, 2004

Grasshopper,

Matt. 26:64 does not say "A week after My resurrection, nor does it say that about 70 A.D. I will come again and you--Caiaphas will see Me in the clouds above. I think if you are intellectually honest with us, you must admit that probably this High Priest would have died physically speaking.

Therefore, Caiaphas will be seeing Jesus sometime in the future of our time, or within our life time.

You still have not pointed out in history where millions of people saw Jesus at His coming again. I do not think you will ever even try to explain the absense of this written historical and spiritual event.

Grasshopper · May 13, 2004

Because of the way I believe it must? If you don't have a legitimate other meaning for this, then why shouldn't we take it literally?

Because I don't believe it was ever meant to be taken literally. To the Hebrew mind many things we would take literally they understood as figurative (Is. 13). I do understand the difficulty for us to figure out when to take it literal and when to take it "spiritually", however I think it is a mistake to assume literal first.

They may have been thinking about the end of the Jewish age, but the whole point of the Gospel is it is not just the Jewish age that needed to end, but also the age of sin and the Fall.

But the age of sin and the Fall did end in a covenential way. When they asked for a sign of the end of the age, I don't think they skipped the age they were living in and jumped to the yet future(to them) age. It makes no sense. Especially when those predictions came true within their generation.

In all of those NT scriptures such as Rom.12:2 speaking of "the world" in a negative light, they were not referring to the Jewish age, but rather the age of sin in general, and it is still the same for us today.

I believe it was John who said " the form of this world is passing away". Again I think they had the Jewish/Old Covenant age in mind. It was a burden and an instrument of death.

So Jesus tells them when the age would end, and typically it would refer to the Jewish age, but in the long run, that would be a shadow of the final end of the age.

I think you are at least intellectually honest in seeing them as a form of fulfillment however:

You jump to a future fulfillment when the fulfillment happened in their generation. I agree the Old Testament is full of types and shadows of future realities, however when the Messiah shows up on the scene the types of the OT become realities, not more types. As much as I was hoping to end up at the partial-pret position, I could not for this very reason. They like you have many, if not all OT prophecies pointing to future types not future realities. When Daniel predicts the Kingdom will come during the Roman Empire, you and Partial Preterist have that fulfilled in a type, not a reality. So your position ends up being the Prophets didn't foretell of the ultimate fulfillments just the types, and from the types we see the ultimate reality. Hope that made sense.

Where in the OT does it say there would be two comings of Christ? You can get a hint of it if you know what to look for, but still, everyone at first understood one coming.

But the point is you CAN find them both in the OT.

But what "spiritual judgment"? The Bible speaks of judgment, your position takes it as referring to AD70, but then when asked what about the rest of humanity, then you come up with this "spiritual judgment? But where is that if everything is talking about AD70? Where does it say that everyone is judged by the destruction of the Temple in AD70?

They are not judged "by the destruction of the Temple". That is just a sign that the Old Covenant is finished.
Rev 20:11 shows the ending of the O. C. afterward the resurrection and judgement then the New Covenant in 21:1.

In Matt 23 Jesus rips into the religious Jews. He is basically saying He is done with them and will finish them off. All the guilt of their fathers transgressions will now fall on this generation (vs. 32). The disciples having heard all this must have been shaken to the core, so when we get into chapter 24 they start asking when will these things be and what are the signs. So the physical judgement was coming upon Jerusalem and at the end the New covenant is ushered in with the spiritual Judgement. Two separate events.

Any full preterists?

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member