A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

[Benjamin]

Is Peter in Heaven? I would think his soul is. But His body is in the grave. Did Peter die after the church was ushered in? Yes, he preached at pentacost when the Holy Spirit brought in the church. When Christ comes for His church in the clouds Peter will be one who comes out of the grave and meets Christ in the clouds.

You sure Peter's not coming with?

1Th 3:13
(13) To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

 

[revmwc]

You sure Peter's not coming with?

1Th 3:13
(13) To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

His soul and spirit come and go into the ressurection body.

 

[Amy.G]

Where does the marriage supper of the Lamb fit into preterism?

 

[Benjamin]

His soul and spirit come and go into the ressurection body.

Eh, I don't want to derail, but do you have scripture to support that?

 

[DHK]

Just an observation over the past few years, people are leaving the pre mill Dispie view in favor of a more preterist position. The Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye nonsense is finally starting to hit it's breaking point the farther away we get from 1948.

Acts 1 is in my opinion the best case for a physical return of Christ. The problem I have is divorcing it from the other "comings" I am convinced speak of the AD70 events. Though I am a solid preterist I am open to all views in that realm.

Does Jesus return on a cloud or a horse?

Jesus returns here:

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: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
--He comes to the clouds. This is the rapture.

He comes here:
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. (Revelation 16:14-16)

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. (Revelation 19:11)
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:16)

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (Revelation 19:19-20)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)

The Bible definitely teaches a literal second coming which cannot be denied when one takes into account the totality of Scripture.

 

[Grasshopper]

I really don't have time to deal with this whole complicated issue this morning. I'm working on the translation of Rom. 15, and have to leave for the church shortly to work with Uncle Miya on Phil.

I must say I'm not surprised, when we get to defending the literalism of time statements Dispies hit the road. Also I find it amusing you must leave for church "shortly". I guess that means about 2000 years?

But I will say this, that yes, parousia definitely means physical coming. It is used undisputably for that in:

Parousia, Often Translated As Coming But Literally Meaning Abiding Presence*
3952 parousia parousia par-oo-see’-ah

from the present participle of 3918; TDNT-5:858,791; n f

AV-coming 22, presence 2; 24

1) presence

2) coming, arrival, advent


http://www.seekfind.net/Parousia_Of...g_But_Literally_Meaning_Abiding_Presence.html

 

[revmwc]

Eh, I don't want to derail, but do you have scripture to support that?

1st Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are 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 which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


Phillipians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

He will come and the dead in christ will rise first, That would include the Apostles, Peter, John, Paul and the rest. He will change our bodies from mortal to immortal like His glorious body. This has not happened and is yet future when the church will be raptured.

 

[Benjamin]

He will come and the dead in christ will rise first, That would include the Apostles, Peter, John, Paul and the rest. He will change our bodies from mortal to immortal like His glorious body. This has not happened and is yet future when the church will be raptured.

I don't agree with the futurist view:

2Co 5:8
(8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

But, we won't go there; I was just curious if you could specifically support that Peter "comes and goes into the ressurection body."

 

[mandym]

I must say I'm not surprised, when we get to defending the literalism of time statements Dispies hit the road. Also I find it amusing you must leave for church "shortly". I guess that means about 2000 years?

You missed my response in post 20. But that is not surprising considering this display of arrogance. Kind of hard to see past it isn't it.

 

[Logos1]

Sometimes we forget the Apostles were all full preterists

Since the Apostles clearly believed and taught that Christ would return in their generation they are undeniably full preterists.

Since the Apostles were the ones inspired by the Holy Spirit--I'll take their word on it not futurists that have to resort to torture of all the soon coming statements in the divinely inspired New Testament.

If the Apostles were wrong then they weren't divinely inspired and once you establish that you can't take their testimony as credible on anything else--saved by faith, resurrection from the grave, or any second coming at all.

I'll side with the Apostles and proudly be a full preterist.

Once I realized what position the apostles took I changed my position to align with theirs.

I can proudly uphold the entire word of God to others instead of twist, torture,and apologize for it. Sorry futurists--no matter how you squirm and deny you are in a perpetual state of creating and inventing to make the bible align with you position--and deep down you know it--you just don't want to accept it. Sad.

 

[convicted1]

Since the Apostles clearly believed and taught that Christ would return in their generation they are undeniably full preterists.

Since the Apostles were the ones inspired by the Holy Spirit--I'll take their word on it not futurists that have to resort to torture of all the soon coming statements in the divinely inspired New Testament.

If the Apostles were wrong then they weren't divinely inspired and once you establish that you can't take their testimony as credible on anything else--saved by faith, resurrection from the grave, or any second coming at all.

I'll side with the Apostles and proudly be a full preterist.

Once I realized what position the apostles took I changed my position to align with theirs.

I can proudly uphold the entire word of God to others instead of twist, torture,and apologize for it. Sorry futurists--no matter how you squirm and deny you are in a perpetual state of creating and inventing to make the bible align with you position--and deep down you know it--you just don't want to accept it. Sad.

Sincere question:

If Jesus' second coming has already taken place, how will those who have died, rise up on the resurrection day? When Jesus comes, those that are alive and remain(born again folks) will be changed in a moment and twinkling of an eye, and the dead in Christ will rise first. So, if He has already came, then how can these things happen. I don't understand the full preterist/partial preterist view, and I ask these questions with all sincerity to understand y'alls view on this matter. Please explain this to me!! BTW, read my signature, and proceed with caution........:laugh::laugh::wavey:

 

[Allan]

Since the Apostles clearly believed and taught that Christ would return in their generation they are undeniably full preterists.

We find the apostles were clearly "looking for him to come" in their generation.. but what you fail to remember historically is that they ALSO taught their disciples to look for his coming, and those disciples taught their disciples, ect.. No where do we ever find them stating, He has come. AND, the premil view was the orthodox view of Church, and was uncontested for the first 200 to 250 years of the early church!

I guess those apostles weren't very good teachers of the on the coming of Jesus

Since the Apostles were the ones inspired by the Holy Spirit--I'll take their word on it not futurists that have to resort to torture of all the soon coming statements in the divinely inspired New Testament.

Then you need to change your view to that which they actually taught, and is seen historically in the early church. - the Premil view - which includes a literal 1000 year reign from Jerusalem, a literal physical return of Christ, a literal and physical resurrection, a literal and single anti-christ, and to restore again the Kingdom to Israel

If the Apostles were wrong then they weren't divinely inspired and once you establish that you can't take their testimony as credible on anything else--saved by faith, resurrection from the grave, or any second coming at all.

Correct, IF they were wrong. And since they were not but taught their disciples to look for His coming and the Premil view, and those disciples taught their disciples the same.. we can know for SURE on that issue, just what the apostles taught.. and this WAS Futurism or the Premil position.

I'll side with the Apostles and proudly be a full preterist.

Apparently you are on the wrong side.. look back at church history.

Once I realized what position the apostles took I changed my position to align with theirs.

Unfortunately, this does not line up with what they taught their disciples.. again, you listened to views that do not line up with their teachings on THIS subject and can be verified vai early church history.

I can proudly uphold the entire word of God to others instead of twist, torture,and apologize for it. Sorry futurists--no matter how you squirm and deny you are in a perpetual state of creating and inventing to make the bible align with you position--and deep down you know it--you just don't want to accept it. Sad.

No. what is sad is that you willingly and proudly stand against not only the testimony of scripture, but the apostles teaching that established the early church view on this subject that was uncontested for over 200 years, and not till 450'ish was that view over turned from orthodoxy.

 

[John of Japan]

The coming in Revelation that John said would happen shortly? The coming Jesus said would happen in His generation? The coming the writer of the book of Hebrews said would come and not tarry? Etc.......

You cannot divorce the time statements from the topic no matter how much you don't want to deal with them. Are the time statements not inspired? Does parousia mean physical coming?

All right, now I have a little bit of time before supper to deal with the "time statements." I will only do this though, expecting you will answer the main thrust of the thread, which I have laid out clearly: Christ came physically and literally in preincarnate appearances (did Jacob wrestle with a spirit?), He came at His incarnation physically and literally, He rose physically and literally. So why will He not come the 2nd time physically and literally? What is the epistemology, the hermeneutics that gives you the right to say He will only come spiritually at His second coming?

Now as for the time statements in Rev., first of all, the usage in 1:1 is special occurring nowhere else. It is a prepositional phrase, en tacei. I think Walvoord handles it nicely, so I'll just quote him: "The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden" (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, John F. Walvoord, p. 35). I might translate the phrase "come to pass in a hurry."

As for the other passages using tacu, we are handicapped in exegesis in that John only uses this word twice outside of Rev., in John 11:29 and 13:27. The 13:27 usage is obviously "soon." However, the 11:29 usage is just as obviously "suddenly" (or in colloquial English, "all of a sudden") since the previous phrase is "as soon as." So we know John uses tacu in the sense of "all of a sudden." With that in mind it is easy to interpret the "time passages" in Rev. as saying that the coming of Christ will be a suddenly occurring event, not necessarily a soon occurring event.

Now I realize that the time passages are difficult to interpret for a futurist, but hey, they are just as hard for a preterist. Why? In order for the interpretation "soon" to be true, Rev. has to be written just before 70 AD, maybe even in 70. It can't be written in 50 or 60 or even 69. Why? Because no one calls ten years or even one year "soon." Yet, preterists proudly say, "You futurists have a problem with the time passages" without realizing the beam in their own eye.

God established a Kingdom in the OT, He also predicted a future Kingdom. Does it mean it must be physical as well? You probably do but many non FP do not think so. God also established a physical Temple in the OT and He promised a future Temple. Does that mean the future Temple must be physical? Paul di\dn't think so. So your entire supposition is moot.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You'll have to give me the passages you are referring to. I once took a grad course on the Kingdom of God and it is a very complex subject.

 

[John of Japan]

I must say I'm not surprised, when we get to defending the literalism of time statements Dispies hit the road. Also I find it amusing you must leave for church "shortly". I guess that means about 2000 years?

I didn't run at all. I ran out of time.

But as I pointed out in my other post, you preterists have just as difficult a problem with the time statements. If Rev. was written in 69 AD you still have a problem. One year (until 70) is certainly not "soon" in the normal meaning.

Parousia, Often Translated As Coming But Literally Meaning Abiding Presence*
3952 parousia parousia par-oo-see’-ah

from the present participle of 3918; TDNT-5:858,791; n f
AV-coming 22, presence 2; 24

1) presence

2) coming, arrival, advent


http://www.seekfind.net/Parousia_Of...g_But_Literally_Meaning_Abiding_Presence.html

Not right at all. This is very poor.

(1) You are apparently using Strong's, which I never use and which has no standing whatsoever with anyone who knows Greek.

(2) You have completely ignored my post in which I proved that every usage of parousia in the NT of humans who were not Christ dealt with a physical presence.

(3) Note the definition from a modern mid level lexicon, the Fribergs' Anlex: "παρουσία , ας , ἡ (1) being present, presence (2C 10.10), opposite ἀπουσία (absence, being away); (2) coming, arrival; (a) of human beings (2C 7.6); (b) as a religious technical term, a future event when Jesus the Messiah returns to earth coming, advent (MT 24.3); (c) in a negative sense, of the appearance of Antichrist coming (2TH 2.9)"

It's time for supper, so I don't have time to read the link. But I'll give it a go later.

 

[John of Japan]

http://www.seekfind.net/Parousia_Of...g_But_Literally_Meaning_Abiding_Presence.html

Now I have time to look at this link. And here is what it has as a definition for parousia:

Parousia, Often Translated As Coming But Literally Meaning Abiding Presence

3952 parousia parousia par-oo-see’-ah
from the present participle of 3918; TDNT-5:858,791; n f

AV-coming 22, presence 2; 24

1. 1) presence
   2) coming, arrival, advent

Parousia is a compound word consisting of par and ousia. Par means along side. Ousia means goods or property. When referring to the parousia of Jesus, it is the coming along side His goods or property. The called, chosen, and faithful are his property. The called, chosen, and faithful are his goods. We are to carry his presence with us at all times, and this is not a static presence, but it goes from glory to ever increasing glory. Although the predominant theological interpretations contend that the second meaning of the word, parousia, should be used when the word is referring to Christ, the unfolding revelation shows that the first meaning, the abiding presence, is what God intends for us to understand.

Now I see where you got the "Strong's definition." That alone brands the writer of this definition as someone who either doesn't know Greek or only knows enough to get him into trouble. If I taught Greek in America instead of Japan I'd tell my students never, ever to use Strong's. :smilewinkgrin: It's way out of date, written well over 100 years ago, before all of the papyri were discovered that we have today to consult.

This is a very poor definition. The word does not mean literally "abiding presence." The mistake this author makes is called by D. A. Carson the "root fallacy" in his excellent book, Exegetical Fallacies. Here is what Carson says: "One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy pre-supposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word" (p. 26).

The normal way to determine a word's meaning is by it's common usage, and I have done that with parousia, proving that every single Biblical usage of people other than Christ involved a literal appearance. Therefore, the parousia of Christ is also a literal presence, a literal and physical 2nd coming.

 

[revmwc]

I don't agree with the futurist view:

2Co 5:8
(8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

But, we won't go there; I was just curious if you could specifically support that Peter "comes and goes into the ressurection body."

1 Thessalonians 4:
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:


The dead in Christ will rise first, will the ressurection body be an empty shell? Is Peter physically dead his body buried? When Christ returns for His church those who are dead will be made complete, body, soul and human spirit. When we die as you show our soul and spirit are immediately with the Lord. When He returns for the church we go meet Him in the air.

Phillipians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Notice verse 21 He will change our sinful bodies with a new ressurection body. One like His when He arose from the dead He could walk and talk, He remembered who everyone was and able to call them by name. So too will we ahve a body like unto His and we will be complete, we who are alive at His coming will meet them in the air, changed in an instant from corrupt to incorrupt. So either the body as shell comes out without soul and spirit or they come with Him and are joined to the body being made complete.

 

[Benjamin]

1 Thessalonians 4:
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:


The dead in Christ will rise first, will the ressurection body be an empty shell? Is Peter physically dead his body buried? When Christ returns for His church those who are dead will be made complete, body, soul and human spirit. When we die as you show our soul and spirit are immediately with the Lord. When He returns for the church we go meet Him in the air.

Okay, I see where you’re going there. I would have a couple cans of worms to open on this, but I have four finals next week and two the week after…and I would most likely have half the Pretrib Dispensationalist of this board up in arms if I even began to address this, so I have to pass.

Yeah, …I seem to have a knack of getting under Dispie’s skin at times on these subjects…check it out:

 

[Benjamin]

AND, the premil view was the orthodox view of Church, and was uncontested for the first 200 to 250 years of the early church!

Hmm, I didn’t even realize Mary Magdalene went that far back in history…

 

[revmwc]

Okay, I see where you’re going there. I would have a couple cans of worms to open on this, but I have four finals next week and two the week after…and I would most likely have half the Pretrib Dispensationalist of this board up in arms if I even began to address this, so I have to pass.

Yeah, …I seem to have a knack of getting under Dispie’s skin at times on these subjects…check it out:

Doesn't get under my skin, this is how we learn:
1. to believe what is true, one or the other changes mind. Rare but can happen.
2. Learn what others believe and disagree but have a better understanding of the doctirnes taught by others.
3. Have a discussion of views and show even if we disagree we can get along.

 

[Grasshopper]

All right, now I have a little bit of time before supper to deal with the "time statements." I will only do this though, expecting you will answer the main thrust of the thread, which I have laid out clearly: Christ came physically and literally in preincarnate appearances (did Jacob wrestle with a spirit?), He came at His incarnation physically and literally, He rose physically and literally. So why will He not come the 2nd time physically and literally? What is the epistemology, the hermeneutics that gives you the right to say He will only come spiritually at His second coming?

The OT taught a coming Messiah would be born in the line of David. It is clear Jesus was to be born physically. But to leap to the conclusion then that that means every other coming of Jesus was to be a physical coming is a non sequitur. Jesus threatened to come to one of the Churches in Rev. 3:3

‘So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you.

Are you insisting this would have been a physical coming?

Now as for the time statements in Rev., first of all, the usage in 1:1 is special occurring nowhere else. It is a prepositional phrase, en tacei. I think Walvoord handles it nicely, so I'll just quote him: "The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden" (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, John F. Walvoord, p. 35). I might translate the phrase "come to pass in a hurry."

Of course Walvoord would say this, otherwise his entire system would collapse.
The problem is there is also a verse 3 to reinforce the soonness of this event.

3.Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

As for the other passages using [FONT=Symbol]tacu[/FONT], we are handicapped in exegesis in that John only uses this word twice outside of Rev., in John 11:29 and 13:27. The 13:27 usage is obviously "soon." However, the 11:29 usage is just as obviously "suddenly" (or in colloquial English, "all of a sudden") since the previous phrase is "as soon as." So we know John uses [FONT=Symbol]tacu [/FONT]in the sense of "all of a sudden." With that in mind it is easy to interpret the "time passages" in Rev. as saying that the coming of Christ will be a suddenly occurring event, not necessarily a soon occurring event.

Paul uses it as well:

Acts 12:7
And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and woke him up, saying, "Get up quickly." And his chains fell off his hands.

Acts 22:18
and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me.’

Acts 25:4
Festus then answered that Paul was being kept in custody at Caesarea and that he himself was about to leave shortly.

Now I realize that the time passages are difficult to interpret for a futurist, but hey, they are just as hard for a preterist.

No, they are not hard for a preterist. Preterist take them literally. Literalism is what Dispies constantly scream at preterist to do.

 Why? In order for the interpretation "soon" to be true, Rev. has to be written just before 70 AD, maybe even in 70. It can't be written in 50 or 60 or even 69. Why? Because no one calls ten years or even one year "soon." Yet, preterists proudly say, "You futurists have a problem with the time passages" without realizing the beam in their own eye.

You've go to be kidding. 3-4 years before the destruction of an entire city, Temple and culture would not be said to be coming soon. Especially considering their 1500 year history. Again, you can't be serious with this objection.